These are the videos from Mr. Leibham's listening session in Sheboygan. They are many short videos, instead of a few long ones, because it is easier to upload short videos than longer ones. I recommend numbers 1, 5, 6, 7 & 8 if you are interested in the changes that have been made and that are being proposed to WI auto insurance laws. I would also recommend that folks start really paying attention to what is happening in our legislature.
This question is regarding the freezing of the picture on the questioner's television. And this question took up several minutes of the session time-as you will see. In my opinion, it is a testimony to the importance of bread and circuses.
The speaker addressing the question is an alderwoman in the city of Sheboygan.
There are 12 things on Mr. Leibham's list of changes to our law to be discussed, and 15 or so that are pending-some of them egregious abuses of power on the part of our legislature and we are talking about television reception, over which Mr. Leibham has zero control. While I understand the urge to be helpful and provide an answer-I hate unanswered questions, myself - this time could have been used better.
This gets back to insurance changes pretty quickly. It's worth watching. It also illustrates one of my principle disagreements with Mr. Leibham. (And which videos have been watched the most since I posted them? That's right, the ones with the discussion of the television question.)
The insurance discussion continues.
This man nails the essential difficulty I have with the mandatory insurance provision. He is willing and able to pay the damages to the other party in his accident and sees no reason that he should be required to pay for insurance as well. This insistence on mandatory insurance is encouraging the entitlement mentality which is already out of control. Yes, doctors and hospitals and vehicle repairs are expensive, but an auto accident should not be seen as a ticket to riches. Sometimes bad things happen and life is hard. It is not American or moral to penalize someone beyond the actual costs of the damages they caused, simply to feed that sense of entitlement. If an individual is able to pay the minimums determined by the state towards an auto accident, they should not be required to pay for insurance as well.
Mr. Leibham does have a lozenge in his mouth and apologized for that necessity several times while asking for our tolerance as he had a bit of a frog in his throat and this was the last of his three listening sessions for the day.
This bit is addressing the question of cell phones while driving.
There were a few other questions on ATV's and the appointment process for the head of the DNR, but my memory card was full.
"Then it shall be, because he hath sinned, and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he took violently away, or the thing which he hath deceitfully gotten, or that which was delivered him to keep, or the lost thing which he found, "~ Lev 6:4
Showing posts with label auto insurance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label auto insurance. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Where were the TEA Party folks?
Today, my state senator, Joe Leibham, held a listening session. He provided a small booklet(nothing fancy-just the facts-black and white as though it came from your home printer) about legislative changes that had been approved, changes that were under discussion and legislation he had worked on.
Some of the changes that have been approved, as those who have been reading this blog know, are outrageously abusive of the citizens of WI. Some of the more outrageous policy items that were dropped from the budget, are being revisited by our legislators. Things like driver's cards for illegal aliens and lowering the liability percentage from 51% to 1%. ( I had thought both of those items were safely off the table and am quite incensed to find that it is not so. That air in Madison I guess.)
Now I have some problems with Mr. Leibham, philosophically, but I will grant that he has been a strong fiscal conservative in his votes and, in general shows a modicum of common sense, of which I approve. I will address my reservations with him in another post, but I wanted to address something else before I do that and before I post videos of bits of his listening session.
We have a participatory form of government folks. That means we participate. When our legislators do their best to let us know what is going on in the halls of the legislature, we should lend them an ear. When they make themselves available to hear our opinions and concerns, we should equally, politely and respectfully share our opinions and concerns. Now I've attended two TEA Parties. One in Madison and one in Sheboygan. Those gatherings were very well attended and there were many concerns spoken of, at the national, state and local levels. Everyone was enthusiastic and wanting things to be changed, (or left alone in certain areas-change for the sake of change is not a reasonable philosophy). One hopes I might be forgiven for worrying that I might not find a seat at this listening session as I was running a little late. I had been to a few of these before and expected, after such rousing displays of patriotism, that this would be packed with concerned citizens. (Goodness knows we have enough with this legislature to be concerned about.)
When my son and I walked into the room, I was immediately apprised of the fact that I need not have worried. It was a relatively small room and there were more open seats than full. There were, perhaps, 15 people in attendance. They were mostly people my age and older. My son was the youngest person in the room and, with the exception of my son, I don't think (I hope not to offend anyone, here) there were any attendees under the age of 30.
It is fine and dandy to have a rousing rally that brings folks out to show our sentiments, but if we don't follow up by attending and requesting such sessions with our legislators, what's the point? We have effectively silenced ourselves. Sure we can send e-mails and phone calls, but too often those are only done when we are irate or bothered about something that affects us personally. (And I believe we can expect a lot more of that in the very near future here in WI.)
If we leave our legislators guessing what we think or want, then we can hardly blame them for inconsistencies in their votes or for voting however they see fit, or, (in the case of those who may have no principles of their own,) according to whatever activist last had their ear. I know I can't attend all of these sessions and I don't expect anyone else to do so either, but there should certainly be more folks at such sessions than I have seen when there isn't something urgent or outrageous under discussion. We not only have the right to participate in this process, we have a duty. If we are not going to participate, then maybe we should be remembering that when we point our finger at someone there are three fingers pointing back at us.
(My apologies to Mr. Leibham for the original misspelling-it has been corrected.)
"But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. " ~Gal 2:11
Some of the changes that have been approved, as those who have been reading this blog know, are outrageously abusive of the citizens of WI. Some of the more outrageous policy items that were dropped from the budget, are being revisited by our legislators. Things like driver's cards for illegal aliens and lowering the liability percentage from 51% to 1%. ( I had thought both of those items were safely off the table and am quite incensed to find that it is not so. That air in Madison I guess.)
Now I have some problems with Mr. Leibham, philosophically, but I will grant that he has been a strong fiscal conservative in his votes and, in general shows a modicum of common sense, of which I approve. I will address my reservations with him in another post, but I wanted to address something else before I do that and before I post videos of bits of his listening session.
We have a participatory form of government folks. That means we participate. When our legislators do their best to let us know what is going on in the halls of the legislature, we should lend them an ear. When they make themselves available to hear our opinions and concerns, we should equally, politely and respectfully share our opinions and concerns. Now I've attended two TEA Parties. One in Madison and one in Sheboygan. Those gatherings were very well attended and there were many concerns spoken of, at the national, state and local levels. Everyone was enthusiastic and wanting things to be changed, (or left alone in certain areas-change for the sake of change is not a reasonable philosophy). One hopes I might be forgiven for worrying that I might not find a seat at this listening session as I was running a little late. I had been to a few of these before and expected, after such rousing displays of patriotism, that this would be packed with concerned citizens. (Goodness knows we have enough with this legislature to be concerned about.)
When my son and I walked into the room, I was immediately apprised of the fact that I need not have worried. It was a relatively small room and there were more open seats than full. There were, perhaps, 15 people in attendance. They were mostly people my age and older. My son was the youngest person in the room and, with the exception of my son, I don't think (I hope not to offend anyone, here) there were any attendees under the age of 30.
It is fine and dandy to have a rousing rally that brings folks out to show our sentiments, but if we don't follow up by attending and requesting such sessions with our legislators, what's the point? We have effectively silenced ourselves. Sure we can send e-mails and phone calls, but too often those are only done when we are irate or bothered about something that affects us personally. (And I believe we can expect a lot more of that in the very near future here in WI.)
If we leave our legislators guessing what we think or want, then we can hardly blame them for inconsistencies in their votes or for voting however they see fit, or, (in the case of those who may have no principles of their own,) according to whatever activist last had their ear. I know I can't attend all of these sessions and I don't expect anyone else to do so either, but there should certainly be more folks at such sessions than I have seen when there isn't something urgent or outrageous under discussion. We not only have the right to participate in this process, we have a duty. If we are not going to participate, then maybe we should be remembering that when we point our finger at someone there are three fingers pointing back at us.
(My apologies to Mr. Leibham for the original misspelling-it has been corrected.)
"But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. " ~Gal 2:11
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Breakfast with Sen. Liebham -part 2 To coerce people out of their cars.
Update #2: 6/24/09 - The joint and several liability provision has been dropped by both the Senate and the assembly, but the budget still contains a proposal to allow stacking of insurance policies and to require increased coverage minimums. The senate has added a proposal requiring drivers in WI to purchase auto liability insurance.
Update: The proposed liability for being held 100% financially liable for all damages in an accident has been reset to 20 % instead of 1%. I still find this to be entirely unacceptable. The results will be the same.
Two of the non-fiscal items in Gov. Doyle's budget should be of concern to every WI citizen who drives a vehicle.
The first one is the raising of mandatory levels of insurance coverage. The state cannot raise your auto insurance premiums, but they can (and have) determine what a reasonable level of insurance coverage is to allow an individual to legally drive on our roads. The proposed change would raise your insurance (if you currently have the minimum coverage) by about 40%. Picture that, 40%, that's going to be about $300 for most people.
First of all, I would like to remind Mr. Doyle that not everybody in WI lives in a metropolitan area where there is public transportation available. This will relegate those folks on fixed incomes in places like Presque Isle or Siren or any number of rural communities to walking or riding bicycles, if they want to be continue to be law abiding citizens. This is Wisconsin. Walking and bicycles are not options for the entire year here. (Especially in Presque Isle or Siren-or really, any place in WI) One hopes those folks have enough land to support a good horse.(No buggies though, because they would require insurance.)
One assumes this will lead to a call for the good taxpayers of our lovely state to provide affordable public transportation for those in rural communities through yet more taxes.
One assumes this will also lead to an increase in the number of people driving without insurance which will cause another hike in that insurance cost.
Unfortunately that 40% increase in your insurance premiums is only the tip of the iceberg. The second item I want to cover in this post has the potential to more than double that or worse.
This second proposal is to drop the percentage of responsibility required to impose financial liability. This is wrong. Ethically wrong, morally wrong and financially wrong. It's a bit tricky, but let me see if I can explain the ramifications in plain language. Currently, in order for a WI citizen to be considered financially liable for the damages of an accident, it must be determined that they have at least 51% responsibility for that accident. That means if you are determined, under WI law, to be more than 50% responsible for the accident, you can be held financially liable for 100% of the damages caused by that accident.
Mr. Doyle's budget proposes that this percentage be dropped to 1.
Here's a scenario under the new budget if it is approved.
Your car is sitting in your driveway. (You managed to pay the new premium-what choice did you have, your work is 20 miles from your place of residence.) A single mother and an hourly wage earner are driving to their respective jobs. Neither one has insurance but they couldn't sell their vehicles - the market is gone because so few people could afford the insurance increase. Besides, they need a vehicle to get to work too, so what choice do they have but to drive illegally? They are both late and speeding. They collide in front of your house. One of the vehicles does a few flips, takes out a mailbox and the light post in front of your house and comes to rest next to your vehicle. A piece of this vehicle flies off and scratches your vehicle, which was sitting in your driveway. The single mother has two broken arms and a back injury. The other driver has a head injury which will put him into a coma for the next two months. The scratch to your vehicle would cost less than your deductible to fix, but here's the rub. Because you are the only one with insurance, you are now de facto 100% financially responsible for all the damages caused by this accident. You have 1% liability for the accident just because your vehicle was where the accident occurred.
Do you understand that? You are 100% financially liable for any accident if you have insurance coverage. Yes, of course the two drivers will also be held responsible, but they have nothing, so they will lose nothing. You will have the potential of losing everything you own to satisfy the financial obligations incurred by this accident if your insurance coverage isn't enough to cover the entire bill. That means your coverage needs to pay for damage to both of the vehicles,(in addition to the scratch on yours) the community property (the light post and mailbox) and the hospital costs for both of those drivers. Will those drivers be able to sue you for ongoing medical expenses if they require them? Maybe.
This will have the affect of making auto insurance providers pay for 100% of the damages caused by all accidents in which there is the involvement of at least one insured vehicle. If I were an auto insurance provider, I would refuse to provide coverage for WI drivers or any vehicles operating in this state under those conditions. If auto insurers continue to write policies in WI, they will surely become the most expensive policies in the nation. What will this increase do to businesses who require fleet vehicles-cabs, trucking, even the buses used for public transportation in the big cities?
This alone has the potential to so change our state that we may never see it come back. Businesses faced with such liability and labor issues (How can they find a reliable workforce if it's too expensive to drive?) will surely relocate. Auto sales will drop like a rock. Auto insurers will surely go elsewhere. Who wants to be on the hook financially for every auto accident in an entire state? How will that impact our citizens? What subterfuges and stratagems will be employed to find someone with insurance upon whom to place the blame for any accident?
I'm sure Mr. Obama will be pleased with this innovative way to "coerce people out of their cars". I am not. Neither should any citizen of WI. The insurance coverage increase was bad enough given our current economic woes, but the 1% liability is beyond the pale. This will not save any money for the state and does not belong in WI law much less a budget proposal.
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's."~Exodus 20:17
Update: The proposed liability for being held 100% financially liable for all damages in an accident has been reset to 20 % instead of 1%. I still find this to be entirely unacceptable. The results will be the same.
Two of the non-fiscal items in Gov. Doyle's budget should be of concern to every WI citizen who drives a vehicle.
The first one is the raising of mandatory levels of insurance coverage. The state cannot raise your auto insurance premiums, but they can (and have) determine what a reasonable level of insurance coverage is to allow an individual to legally drive on our roads. The proposed change would raise your insurance (if you currently have the minimum coverage) by about 40%. Picture that, 40%, that's going to be about $300 for most people.
First of all, I would like to remind Mr. Doyle that not everybody in WI lives in a metropolitan area where there is public transportation available. This will relegate those folks on fixed incomes in places like Presque Isle or Siren or any number of rural communities to walking or riding bicycles, if they want to be continue to be law abiding citizens. This is Wisconsin. Walking and bicycles are not options for the entire year here. (Especially in Presque Isle or Siren-or really, any place in WI) One hopes those folks have enough land to support a good horse.(No buggies though, because they would require insurance.)
One assumes this will lead to a call for the good taxpayers of our lovely state to provide affordable public transportation for those in rural communities through yet more taxes.
One assumes this will also lead to an increase in the number of people driving without insurance which will cause another hike in that insurance cost.
Unfortunately that 40% increase in your insurance premiums is only the tip of the iceberg. The second item I want to cover in this post has the potential to more than double that or worse.
This second proposal is to drop the percentage of responsibility required to impose financial liability. This is wrong. Ethically wrong, morally wrong and financially wrong. It's a bit tricky, but let me see if I can explain the ramifications in plain language. Currently, in order for a WI citizen to be considered financially liable for the damages of an accident, it must be determined that they have at least 51% responsibility for that accident. That means if you are determined, under WI law, to be more than 50% responsible for the accident, you can be held financially liable for 100% of the damages caused by that accident.
Mr. Doyle's budget proposes that this percentage be dropped to 1.
Here's a scenario under the new budget if it is approved.
Your car is sitting in your driveway. (You managed to pay the new premium-what choice did you have, your work is 20 miles from your place of residence.) A single mother and an hourly wage earner are driving to their respective jobs. Neither one has insurance but they couldn't sell their vehicles - the market is gone because so few people could afford the insurance increase. Besides, they need a vehicle to get to work too, so what choice do they have but to drive illegally? They are both late and speeding. They collide in front of your house. One of the vehicles does a few flips, takes out a mailbox and the light post in front of your house and comes to rest next to your vehicle. A piece of this vehicle flies off and scratches your vehicle, which was sitting in your driveway. The single mother has two broken arms and a back injury. The other driver has a head injury which will put him into a coma for the next two months. The scratch to your vehicle would cost less than your deductible to fix, but here's the rub. Because you are the only one with insurance, you are now de facto 100% financially responsible for all the damages caused by this accident. You have 1% liability for the accident just because your vehicle was where the accident occurred.
Do you understand that? You are 100% financially liable for any accident if you have insurance coverage. Yes, of course the two drivers will also be held responsible, but they have nothing, so they will lose nothing. You will have the potential of losing everything you own to satisfy the financial obligations incurred by this accident if your insurance coverage isn't enough to cover the entire bill. That means your coverage needs to pay for damage to both of the vehicles,(in addition to the scratch on yours) the community property (the light post and mailbox) and the hospital costs for both of those drivers. Will those drivers be able to sue you for ongoing medical expenses if they require them? Maybe.
This will have the affect of making auto insurance providers pay for 100% of the damages caused by all accidents in which there is the involvement of at least one insured vehicle. If I were an auto insurance provider, I would refuse to provide coverage for WI drivers or any vehicles operating in this state under those conditions. If auto insurers continue to write policies in WI, they will surely become the most expensive policies in the nation. What will this increase do to businesses who require fleet vehicles-cabs, trucking, even the buses used for public transportation in the big cities?
This alone has the potential to so change our state that we may never see it come back. Businesses faced with such liability and labor issues (How can they find a reliable workforce if it's too expensive to drive?) will surely relocate. Auto sales will drop like a rock. Auto insurers will surely go elsewhere. Who wants to be on the hook financially for every auto accident in an entire state? How will that impact our citizens? What subterfuges and stratagems will be employed to find someone with insurance upon whom to place the blame for any accident?
I'm sure Mr. Obama will be pleased with this innovative way to "coerce people out of their cars". I am not. Neither should any citizen of WI. The insurance coverage increase was bad enough given our current economic woes, but the 1% liability is beyond the pale. This will not save any money for the state and does not belong in WI law much less a budget proposal.
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's."~Exodus 20:17
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
