Posted on 08/18/2002 5:05:52 PM PDT by JeremyL
This is a letter I wrote to the Department of Insurance several days ago. Please act on this information and get INVOLVED! -JEL
To Whom It May Concern:
Automobile insurance becomes an oppressive taxation when the State orders the compelled benefit onto the People. The benefit discussed here is "Reduced Automotive Liability". When insurance companies can raise rates based on a buyer's consumer credit rating, it is an act of discrimination as well as an act of tyranny and oppression because the State ordered the People to receive the benefit Without controlling the Corporation, writing the benefits/policies. Credit ratings have no relevance to "Reduced Automotive Liability" benefits. When the State orders compelled benefits onto the People, the benefits are no longer a consumer item to be bought; they must be controlled by the State and sold by the State. But, the State cannot engage in self- enrichment by selling policies to the People. However, the State can control how "Reduced Automotive Liability" benefits reach the People. Rights of the People are being abrogated by uncontrolled insurance companies all over Florida. The Peoples' Right to "Liberty" to engage in "Reduced Automotive Liability" benefits, without discrimination by various insurance companies, is the Right discussed here in this short letter to your agency. A formal letter will be mailed to your agency in the near future regarding this discussion. I respectfully request this agency investigate the long-term abuses caused by automobile insurance companies across Florida State.
Sincerely, Jeremy E. Laughery, Florida State Citizen
The Big Study
Insurance companies claim that use of credit reports for auto insurance rates is acceptable because the report reflects potential loss of the policy holder. The big study did not include every automotive insurance policy holder in the United States of America. Nor did the study prove that all Citizens with less than perfect credit actually have accidents. Since the big study could not hold true for every Citizen regardless of his or her status, the results must become that of not only statistics but that of a form of religion.
Constitutionality of Credit Reports and Auto Insurance
Religion is defined as “conscience and belief” which has no place in government, according to the Constitution for the several States. Use of credit reports for auto insurance rates is unconstitutional on its face. Federal law that permits insurance companies use credit reports, for the governing of rates, must be repealed at once. No form of government can respect any form of religion; it must be non-biased. As Federal law stands now, it is biased towards insurance companies’ use of credit scoring for rate governing, respecting a form of religion.
State Induced Oppression and Tyranny
When the State orders its Citizens engage in “Reduced Automotive Liability” benefits, the benefit policy becomes one that is oppressive. When the State orders its Citizens engage in “Reduced Automotive Liability” benefits by threat of incarceration, the benefit policy becomes an oppressive taxation induced by the State because the State can tax the gain experienced by Insurance Companies.
The Better Way
A Federal clean air tax is assessed at the gas pump for the convenience of the Federal government. Take a percentage of the clean air tax and mix it with a new tax called “Reduced Automotive Liability Fuel Tax”. The two cent tax would be indirect and constitutional and not oppressive.
The Key Thing Here
Everyone should be accountable for their actions as well as pay their own medical bills. All Citizens that wish to travel have agreed to put themselves into some level of danger. Automobiles are glorified machines used for transport.
The Author will post more on this subject later, please hang in there.
Thanks for reading, Jeremy E. Laughery
I'm sorry. I think it's pointless to read beyond this line.
Best.
Absolutely not.
Or, if you own many cars, call them and ask what you have to do to self-insure - lots of taxi and limousine companies self-insure their fleets. IIRC, what you basically do is use the value of the several cars you own as surety in case any one of them gets in an accident.
Proof of financial security is the key - that's what they require, really, not insurance. If the idea of paying insurance companies really bothers you, that is. And the best part is that, while it may be uncommon, it's perfectly legal, and you don't have to get all tinfoilish about it.
Of course, what you'll probably find is that posting a bond is expensive, whereas insurance is relatively cheap, but you do have legal options. ;)
not possible in Mass., oh you can call but no one is going to answer. Besides, I really doubt you can legally drive a car without insurance in Mass. It's actually a "criminal" offense.
LOL - I feel your pain. NY DMV isn't much friendlier, but I don't think I can do much to help you with that ;)
Besides, I really doubt you can legally drive a car without insurance in Mass.
Prepare to be amazed. Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 90, Sections 34a and 34d. Actually, take the link at the bottom of either of those pages back to the Chapter 90 table of contents and read sections 34a, 34b, 34c, and 34d.
Interesting, isn't it?
A "bit"? LOL.
You're not the least bit suspicious of a guy who signs up only to announce that He has Written a Letter and We Must All Act, while making it obvious that he's going to do everything in his power to ensure that all of his letters go straight into the circular file?
I can agree with the following (without hitching my wagon to a fruit loop like Jeremy L):
Auto insurance is a gamble. The insurance company is betting that they can rake in your money and never pay out, and you would be betting that you will need a payout, if you had a choice. The odds of the bet should be based only on factors that actually affect the possibility of a payout - your driving record and accidents.
Now, about this:
Basing the rate on age, sex or marital status is discriminatory.
The insurance companies have all sorts of stats that enable them to assign risk factors when they "gamble". I would normally say this is fine and dandy, except that if the state mandates purchasing the coverage they offer at the rates established by those factors, they are in fact subsidizing discrimination. It's something to look into.
On the other hand, you simply can't have only one side doing all the gambling, as you would have if the state ordered the insurance companies to provide coverage at a lower rate than they feel willprovide for all payouts and still leave them solvent. Then they will simply stop offering the insurance. This was a problem in New Jersey a few years ago, for all I know it still is.
Hmmmm, the word 'Usury' seems to be a word used a lot in posts to this topic. Maybe we should look into the fact that the State is engaging in "Usury" by "using" insurance companies for self-enrichment.
There are many things you need, Jeremy, but please keep "dictionary" up near the top of your list.
So, if I'm reading most of 34d correctly, you could give the state treasurer ten-thousand in stocks, bonds, or cash, and collect the interest on the that. And if you don't get in any accidents your money is safe? What about tickets? This would seemingly make you immune to any points system.... (which is nice)
Well, $10K in cash or a bond, actually. Probably not stocks or bonds of the EE Treasury bond type. What you'd do for a bond is go to a duly-licensed surety company in MA, and get a bond from them by pledging something of value as collateral, such as stocks or whatever. Then you give that bond to the state. Or you can give them $10K in cash.
And if you don't get in any accidents your money is safe?
Correct. The best analogy is to think of it like a damage deposit when you rent an apartment. The state holds it in escrow for you, like a landlord does with a damage deposit, and if there is an accident, you agree that the state can take that money and use it to automatically settle any judgements against you, just like you agree that the landlord can take your damage deposit and automatically use it to fix any damages you cause to an apartment. And the state is required to pay interest on it while holding it, so if, when you deregister your car, there are no judgements against you, you get your money back plus interest.
What about tickets? This would seemingly make you immune to any points system.... (which is nice)
Correct. Insofar as insurance companies use your driving record to figure out your premiums, you no longer have to worry about points. However, Motor Vehicles will still track points for purposes of suspending or revoking your license, I'm sure.
Here's the rub, though - $10,000 is very low. I'm surprised by how low it is in MA - here in NY, you have to put up cash or a bond for the amount of the legal minimum of liability coverage, which is $50,000. If you get into a serious accident that you are found liable for, $10,000 won't even begin to cover your liabilities in terms of damage to property or persons.
But, the point is that there are options besides insurance. Most people aren't willing to put up $10,000 in cash ($50,000 here in NY), or they don't have that much in cash, or they're not willing to use their houses and such as collateral for a bond (or they don't know they can - very few people are aware that you can do this), so they get insurance instead. But there are options.
Best thing to do is get in touch with the surly reprobates at Mass. DMV and find out the precise details - this undoubtedly involves a mountain of paperwork, but it can be done ;)
Amen!
We, too, have uninsured motorist, and I suppose we could decline it, but it would be folly to do so in this state, since there are so many here who thumb their noses at all our laws and the courts will do nothing to them.
But your idea sounds like a start.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.