| Message |
Just about the only time that insurance is a worthwhile investment is when you get hit very early after beginning the policy. (This is excluding liability, of course, which I can see at least some value in. I'd hate to love-tap a Ferrari, god-forbid, and have to pay damages on that withouth the help of insurance.) I think that liability and non-liability insurances should be separated, and that severe reforms on non-liability be put in place. Essentially, you would create a coverage-cap, where once you reach your goal, then your premiums drop substantially. You would still pay a small fee monthly/annually/whatever as payment to the company for taking an initial risk on you, and they get to keep any interest that is built on the fund. If/when you get in an accident, you get however much you need, up to the amount of the coverage cap, and then you start filling up the fund again until it is full again. That way the insurance company still makes money, and the insuree doesn't get reamed. Of course, the insurance company still get to ream you in liability, since it is such a gamble and there is really very little other way to do it. People who cause wrecks all the time won't be able to get insurance, so the company can't use them as an excuse to raise your rates--in fact, at the beginning of the contract you would agree upon a fixed rate (which might be adjusted over the years for inflation/deflation).
Of course, this model only applies to auto insurance, and there are probably some bugs/kinks to work out for it to really work well... but it's a start. I don't think that lobbyists for the insurance industry would ever let something like this happen though. :-/
"The two seater is being joined in a few weeks by a larger two-plus-two model with a rear seat for munchkins." ~Jim Mateja, Chicago Tribune, in regards to the Z32.
Andrew Janeshek // jnshk@aol.com // 1992 NA 2+2 [Stage 2-ish]
 |
 |
