Chart shows similarities and key differences between the “reform” plans backed by Gov. Snyder, House Speaker Bolger and Sen. Pappageorge
This past month, Michigan’s No Fault insurance laws were in the cross hairs, with plans introduced to drastically change parts of it introduced by House Speaker Jase Bolger and Sen. John Pappageorge. I’ve put together an informative chart that compares the similarities and big differences between the different proposals (including the earlier plan strongly backed by Gov. Rick Snyder and Rep. Pete Lund).
The plans I compared include:
- House Bill 4612 – Introduced April 2013 by Rep. Pete Lund (R-36th District) and strongly backed by Gov. Rick Snyder.
- “Substitute for House Bill 4612″ – House Speaker Jase Bolger (R-Marshall)’s and the House Republicans’ draft, which has not yet been introduced.
- Senate Bill 818 – Introduced February 25, 2014, by Sen. John Pappageorge (R-13th District).
The chart compares the specifics of the three Republican-sponsored No Fault insurance reform plans that are currently on the table and being considered officially and unofficially by the Michigan Legislature.
After seeing what the insurance industry lobby is proposing, funded through campaign contributions to certain lawmakers, you may conclude – as I have – that you’re not buying it.
One Reply to “How do 3 different Michigan No Fault Insurance Reform plans compare?”
The insurance companies have always had their caps, using denial, delays and just not replying to the needs of the disabled. If it hasn’t been bad enough with the laws in place so far, I can just imagine the future for our families. We are paying for policies that pay little if anything, so why are we buying auto insurance? Paying a penalty or fine may be cheaper in the long run, as putting your hard earned money into stock and annuities and only pulling it out if you have an accident may be the wiser choice. I watched my parents do this after retirement with their health insurance options. They had enough money left over where they gave each of their three children ten thousand dollars, even before their death. They put what money they would have paid for insurance into a savings account monthly, never drawing on this savings unless they needed it for medical care. To their surprise, and ours too, they had quite a nest egg that would have gone to some insurance carrier and lost forever! In the reform options above has any one considered the savings the insurance company will also gain by employing less and less adjusters to administer a handful of minimum benefits? Better yet, maybe minimum wage employees who work less than 30 hours a week, thereby missing health insurance requirements for employees as well. I mention this because our adjuster has already been reduced to three days a week. My oh my the politicians and the insurance carriers are knocking three of the deadly sins right out of the park, gluttony , greed and wrath! From the way it looks to me, we will be losing our handicap home, moving in with seventy year old parents, who will now have to help in the care of my disabled husband. I’m already exhausted just thinking about the undoable future. My husband is going to more than suffer.