What’s a life worth to a Republican? In the past, it might have been an interesting question for rhetorical debate among partisans but Wisconsin Republicans have now provided the answer. The party that uses “pro-life” as a campaign slogan places a value on human life half that of Democrats.
Last year, Wisconsin finally joined nearly every single other state (New Hampshire is the only exception) and finally made auto insurance mandatory. In doing so, the legislature set certain minimums for coverage (there were prior minimums if insurance was purchased and minimums for “financial responsibility” but those nuances of Wisconsin’s former law are not essential to the present issue). At a minimum, a driver is now required to have insurance to cover up to $50,000 for the death or serious injury of one person, with a cap of $100,000 per accident if multiple people are injured or killed, and at least $15,000 for property damage. Republicans seek to lower the minimums to $25,000 for the death or serious injury of one person, with a cap of $50,000 per accident if multiple people are injured or killed, and only $10,000 for property damage. The reason offered by Republicans is to cut insurance rates.
Although there is debate as to whether a cut in minimums would actually result in any savings for any driver, for present purposes, I will skip over this debate and presume that a person maintaining only the statutorily mandated minimums will realize some savings under the Republican plan.
But ensuring the lowest cost to drivers is not the purpose of mandatory insurance laws and minimum coverage requirements. If that was the case, then clearly the cheapest option for consumers would be to simply forego any insurance coverage. But Republicans are not proposing this extreme step and for good reason; minimum insurance requirements are not designed primarily to protect the insured but rather are designed to protect the general public who may be injured by the negligent conduct of one of these insured drivers.
If a person is injured through the fault of a driver, mandatory and minimum insurance laws are designed to ensure that the innocent victim will not be left without compensation for his injuries. $25,000 might be sufficient to cover a week off work and a few trips to a chiropractor, but if injuries are anything but minor, $25,000 would hardly put a dent in a bill for surgery and a few days in the hospital. When a negligent driver lacks sufficient insurance, the innocent driver is on the hook for his medical bills and in many instances, ultimately the taxpayer.
With respect to compensating a family for the death of a loved one is how the Republican proposal is so plainly disturbing. The notion that any politician, much less an entire political party, would so proudly proclaim that any human life is worth no more than $25,000 should be profoundly troubling to every single person in this state. Just to put the value Republicans are placing upon human life in some context, cattle have been sold for $59,000 in Wisconsin.
For those who don’t want to get into the “what’s a human life worth” debate, then let’s instead focus upon something much more tangible and real: what’s a car worth? This bill calls for a mere $10,000 for property damage. You can almost sneeze on a car the wrong way and do a few thousands dollars in body damage to a car. With a mere $10,000, the average car owner who has his car totaled by a negligent driver will be forced to turn to his insurance (provided he has comprehensive coverage) and pay his deductible and higher premium costs simply because the negligent driver had woefully inadequate insurance. And if the innocent driver lacks comprehensive coverage for his own car, the shortage is going to come out of his own pocket.
It is particularly ironic that Republicans have taken up this banner because the greatest financial impact of this bill will be felt in the form of higher premiums paid by traditional Republicans, e.g. those with financial means and assets sufficient to warrant obtaining insurance coverage substantially beyond the minimums called for in this bill.
A family with a house in the suburbs with some equity and a bit of money in savings for the kids’ college would be well advised to have coverage at least ten-times greater than the minimums called for in this bill and so will have coverage providing for $250,000 for the death or serious injury of one person, with a cap of $500,000 per accident if multiple people are injured or killed, and at least $200,000 for property damage.
This policy also provides un- and under-insured coverage at the same limits. This coverage protects the insured against other drivers who lack sufficient coverage to cover any damage or injuries he causes to the insured. Under this coverage, a responsible driver is buying insurance against the irresponsibility of others. If it becomes more likely that another driver will not have coverage sufficient cover the damage he causes, as is likely to happen when policy minimums are lowered, the un- and under-insured coverage becomes more expensive for responsible for drivers. Therefore, the family in the suburbs ends up paying more for its insurance.
0 comments:
Post a Comment