Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 101

Thread: Michigan no fault reform bill

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Senior Member bigtop1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Greater metropolitan Detroit area
    Posts
    362

    Michigan no fault reform bill

    The state of Michigan has introduced a bill to reform or terminate the no fault insurance coverage to people who have been permanently injured. Until now, the insurance companies would cover expenses related to the victims of an accident. There would be no grandfathering in those already recieving assistance. I have been one of those benefiting. I am concerned. I am scared. I don't know how this will all turn out but, I am sure it will not be good. Can anyone give me some advice on how and what you may do to recieve assistance in your care, supplies, nursing care, etc.. The bill I am referring to is the Michigan house bill 4936 or, HB4936.
    I refuse to tip toe through life, only to arrive safely at death.

  2. #2
    Senior Member medic1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    New London, WI USA
    Posts
    1,144
    I will be following this too as I receive benefits under the no-fault. I can't see how they would cut us all off when we paid in to those benefits all along and continue to do so today. Its wrong to take away benefits we are relying on. If they want to change it they should at least have to continue to pay to those who already receive benefits. They are crying now cause they say they dont have any money. Really???? most of my benefits is covered by work comp and they have very little they pay on my behalf. We pay outrageous vehicle insurance in Michigan and now they want to take everything away from us?? Ugh I get so mad! What do those of us do that rely on these benefits do?? Isnt that like paying for a lifetime membership and then months later the business goes defunct and we are out the membership with no remedy or refund????

  3. #3
    Senior Member bigtop1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Greater metropolitan Detroit area
    Posts
    362
    Medic one,........May I suggest that you send an email to your state senator advising him to vote on the bill in favor of the people who have needed it in the past.
    I refuse to tip toe through life, only to arrive safely at death.

  4. #4
    Michigan's MCCA is a horribly unfair program that, like most redistribution programs, ends up disproportionally taxing those who can least afford it (such as disabled and low income). The reason is that it is based solely on vehicle ownership. Every vehicle owned costs an extra $150/yr. But ownership has nothing to do with use. Many poor people own multiple vehicles out of necessity. When you drive old junkers you need a backup to have reliable transportation for work.

    In our case we go without collision coverage on our handicap van because the cost is so high. That's a huge risk since the van would cost about $10K to replace. The van only gets used about once a week or so when I need to transport my wife to appointments or shopping. The last thing I want to do is drive a 15 year old van that gets 12 mpg city to work. And it makes economic sense to keep the van out of the salt as much as possible to prolong it's life. I already pay a full MCCA premium on my daily commuter. The extra MCCA alone on the van amounts to a tax of 10 cents/mile for those disabled transport miles.

    I am a long time car enthusiast but I'm ready to sell my old cars. I haven't driven either one in several years because I don't want to pay $300/yr for MCCA. Lest you think I am rich, the two of them together are barely worth $5000. Oddly enough, motorcycles owners don't pay the tax. Yet, they are the drivers most likely to be seriously injured on the road.

    The reality is Michigan is brutal to the working class. Thanks to our one wimpy turd, my wife will probably be paying MI income taxes on her Social Security now while rich pensioners continue to enjoy tax-free retirement and grandfathered low property taxes. Age apparently has its entitlement. At the same time, the tax assessor thinks our house is much more than average because it's accessible. The same assessor refuses to acknowledge the law that allows for property tax reduction for the disabled. Should I die or be injured, they will eagerly take 1/3 of her SS check for property taxes. The goal is apparently to drive the disabled out of their homes where they might be able to support themselves and into taxpayer funded long-term care facilities.

    Many may feel the MCCA program is worth it, and put up examples of specific people it helps, but it comes at the expense of many people who are worse off than the beneficiaries. I personally know of someone collecting twice from MCCA what my wife gets from SS for a closed head injury. His brain functions the same of anyone else, has no physical injuries, needs no special care at all, and he never has to work again. The only difference was he was in a single car accident instead of being unlucky enough to contract a random disease.

    Still my wife is lucky. Had she not been able to work long enough to qualify for social security, we would have been bankrupted long ago and she would would have been institutionalized. Twenty years in and I know we need to get divorced if I am going to have any chance at retirement myself. The law ultimately punishes those who stick by their spouses and save the taxpayers about a million dollars for every 10 years they keep them out of long term care.

    What we need is non-discriminatory help for the disabled. Not preferential programs for people who are injured at work, in a car accident, or at the liability of someone with deep pockets. As for the MCCA, if it can't be changed to tax only once per driver it needs to go.

  5. #5
    I worked as a vocational rehab counselor for many years in Michigan. Although I was not directly connected to the no fault program we were proud of what it could do to assist people w disabilities and felt it was a model for other states. I know several people whose homes were completely renovated for accessibility through this program, of another who received payment for an overhead track system to enable transfers from the bed, to the bathroom, etc. It pays for education and retraining on a lifelong basis and as disabled people age helps them w more assistive devices to make life easier. In the case of those who need it the program will even pay for all necessary personal assistant costs. All of this without the disabled person needing to be impoverished before help could be made available through Medicaid. I know for certain this program has kept many out of nursing homes and the nursing home is likely where they will be headed when Michigan politicians abolish it. Imo, the destruction of no fault is a corporate favor for big campaign contributors, those who are waiting to receive the big savings obtained at the cost of this program will be waiting forever as I believe 90% of the savings obtained will find their way into the paychecks of corporate bigwigs and perhaps pay some dividends for stockholders.

  6. #6
    Senior Member medic1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    New London, WI USA
    Posts
    1,144
    Quote Originally Posted by MSspouse View Post
    Michigan's MCCA is a horribly unfair program that, like most redistribution programs, ends up disproportionally taxing those who can least afford it (such as disabled and low income). The reason is that it is based solely on vehicle ownership. Every vehicle owned costs an extra $150/yr. But ownership has nothing to do with use. Many poor people own multiple vehicles out of necessity. When you drive old junkers you need a backup to have reliable transportation for work.

    In our case we go without collision coverage on our handicap van because the cost is so high. That's a huge risk since the van would cost about $10K to replace. The van only gets used about once a week or so when I need to transport my wife to appointments or shopping. The last thing I want to do is drive a 15 year old van that gets 12 mpg city to work. And it makes economic sense to keep the van out of the salt as much as possible to prolong it's life. I already pay a full MCCA premium on my daily commuter. The extra MCCA alone on the van amounts to a tax of 10 cents/mile for those disabled transport miles.

    I am a long time car enthusiast but I'm ready to sell my old cars. I haven't driven either one in several years because I don't want to pay $300/yr for MCCA. Lest you think I am rich, the two of them together are barely worth $5000. Oddly enough, motorcycles owners don't pay the tax. Yet, they are the drivers most likely to be seriously injured on the road.

    The reality is Michigan is brutal to the working class. Thanks to our one wimpy turd, my wife will probably be paying MI income taxes on her Social Security now while rich pensioners continue to enjoy tax-free retirement and grandfathered low property taxes. Age apparently has its entitlement. At the same time, the tax assessor thinks our house is much more than average because it's accessible. The same assessor refuses to acknowledge the law that allows for property tax reduction for the disabled. Should I die or be injured, they will eagerly take 1/3 of her SS check for property taxes. The goal is apparently to drive the disabled out of their homes where they might be able to support themselves and into taxpayer funded long-term care facilities.

    Many may feel the MCCA program is worth it, and put up examples of specific people it helps, but it comes at the expense of many people who are worse off than the beneficiaries. I personally know of someone collecting twice from MCCA what my wife gets from SS for a closed head injury. His brain functions the same of anyone else, has no physical injuries, needs no special care at all, and he never has to work again. The only difference was he was in a single car accident instead of being unlucky enough to contract a random disease.

    Still my wife is lucky. Had she not been able to work long enough to qualify for social security, we would have been bankrupted long ago and she would would have been institutionalized. Twenty years in and I know we need to get divorced if I am going to have any chance at retirement myself. The law ultimately punishes those who stick by their spouses and save the taxpayers about a million dollars for every 10 years they keep them out of long term care.

    What we need is non-discriminatory help for the disabled. Not preferential programs for people who are injured at work, in a car accident, or at the liability of someone with deep pockets. As for the MCCA, if it can't be changed to tax only once per driver it needs to go.
    Really?? So those who get hurt on the job should just suck it up? I take offense to this as I was hurt on the job. I was working as a paramedic when the ambulance rolled and left me a paraplegic. I have been unable to work since. I was 23. Should I be punished for risking my life to save others with no compensation. How many jobs would go unfilled because people would be too afraid of getting hurt and not being able to afford care for themselves or family due to getting hurt on the job. My unique situaion also involves the auto ins. they pay very little in any of my care. Yet, they are supposed to be paying for my medical, they have shoved it off onto work comp. Even though there is no price cut for the auto insurance, they know that if anyone gets hurt in the ambulance the dont have to pay anything or pay very little. They make money hand over fist. I would really like to see the number of people they actually take care of for life from vehicle accidents. I am very thankful that I have both of these programs. I am sorry that the resources for your wife are limited. Both of my parents have polio, so I know it can be a struggle to live on a fixed income because of contracting a disease.

    Non-discriminatory care for the disabled....I think that is what Obama care would take care of.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by medic1 View Post
    Really?? So those who get hurt on the job should just suck it up? I take offense to this as I was hurt on the job. I was working as a paramedic when the ambulance rolled and left me a paraplegic. I have been unable to work since. I was 23. Should I be punished for risking my life to save others with no compensation. How many jobs would go unfilled because people would be too afraid of getting hurt and not being able to afford care for themselves or family due to getting hurt on the job. My unique situaion also involves the auto ins. they pay very little in any of my care. Yet, they are supposed to be paying for my medical, they have shoved it off onto work comp. Even though there is no price cut for the auto insurance, they know that if anyone gets hurt in the ambulance the dont have to pay anything or pay very little. They make money hand over fist. I would really like to see the number of people they actually take care of for life from vehicle accidents. I am very thankful that I have both of these programs. I am sorry that the resources for your wife are limited. Both of my parents have polio, so I know it can be a struggle to live on a fixed income because of contracting a disease.

    Non-discriminatory care for the disabled....I think that is what Obama care would take care of.
    I think no fault should be doing more for you.....Have you ever talked to a lawyer about this as I know a few good ones.

    Art
    Art

  8. #8

    Time to vote them out!!!!

    Time to vote Republican party out in Michigan and save our rights and let the people vote on no-fault and Retirement taxes they passed.
    I have been getting so much crap mail from the Republican party and phone calls.... aka...(The ins. lobby)

    I am voting for all Democratic Party as a lot of people are around me here.

    We are sick of what the Republican party has done in this state.
    Art

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by MSspouse View Post
    Michigan's MCCA is a horribly unfair program that, like most redistribution programs, ends up disproportionally taxing those who can least afford it (such as disabled and low income). The reason is that it is based solely on vehicle ownership. Every vehicle owned costs an extra $150/yr. But ownership has nothing to do with use. Many poor people own multiple vehicles out of necessity. When you drive old junkers you need a backup to have reliable transportation for work.

    In our case we go without collision coverage on our handicap van because the cost is so high. That's a huge risk since the van would cost about $10K to replace. The van only gets used about once a week or so when I need to transport my wife to appointments or shopping. The last thing I want to do is drive a 15 year old van that gets 12 mpg city to work. And it makes economic sense to keep the van out of the salt as much as possible to prolong it's life. I already pay a full MCCA premium on my daily commuter. The extra MCCA alone on the van amounts to a tax of 10 cents/mile for those disabled transport miles.

    I am a long time car enthusiast but I'm ready to sell my old cars. I haven't driven either one in several years because I don't want to pay $300/yr for MCCA. Lest you think I am rich, the two of them together are barely worth $5000. Oddly enough, motorcycles owners don't pay the tax. Yet, they are the drivers most likely to be seriously injured on the road.

    The reality is Michigan is brutal to the working class. Thanks to our one wimpy turd, my wife will probably be paying MI income taxes on her Social Security now while rich pensioners continue to enjoy tax-free retirement and grandfathered low property taxes. Age apparently has its entitlement. At the same time, the tax assessor thinks our house is much more than average because it's accessible. The same assessor refuses to acknowledge the law that allows for property tax reduction for the disabled. Should I die or be injured, they will eagerly take 1/3 of her SS check for property taxes. The goal is apparently to drive the disabled out of their homes where they might be able to support themselves and into taxpayer funded long-term care facilities.

    Many may feel the MCCA program is worth it, and put up examples of specific people it helps, but it comes at the expense of many people who are worse off than the beneficiaries. I personally know of someone collecting twice from MCCA what my wife gets from SS for a closed head injury. His brain functions the same of anyone else, has no physical injuries, needs no special care at all, and he never has to work again. The only difference was he was in a single car accident instead of being unlucky enough to contract a random disease.

    Still my wife is lucky. Had she not been able to work long enough to qualify for social security, we would have been bankrupted long ago and she would would have been institutionalized. Twenty years in and I know we need to get divorced if I am going to have any chance at retirement myself. The law ultimately punishes those who stick by their spouses and save the taxpayers about a million dollars for every 10 years they keep them out of long term care.

    What we need is non-discriminatory help for the disabled. Not preferential programs for people who are injured at work, in a car accident, or at the liability of someone with deep pockets. As for the MCCA, if it can't be changed to tax only once per driver it needs to go.
    You said....I am a long time car enthusiast but I'm ready to sell my old cars.
    I have two old cars and if they are 25 years or older you can get classic ins.....the mcca is not 145.00 a year either and you only pay 30 dollars for 10 year plate....am sure you new this and if not this is for your info....
    My 71 vette is 160.00 a years for full coverage and guaranteed for 16,000 with no deductible other than comp. which is 100.00.
    Just for your info....hate to see you give up your cars as am a car guy to.

    Art
    Art

  10. #10
    Michigan legislators are considering changing insurance benefits for people badly injured in auto accidents. The sponsors of the legislation say it will lower the price of auto insurance. Some analysts say it will mean people who are severely hurt won’t get the care they need and argue in the end won’t save much money at all.

    Paul Green didn’t know what would happen when his son was catastrophically injured in a car accident. The crash caused severe head injuries. He ended up in the hospital for six months. The bill: $2.5 million. And when Green’s son started rehabilitation, he didn’t know letters from numbers. When he went to fill a glass of water, he didn’t know which way to turn the glass to fill it. It would take years of rehabilitation to relearn almost everything.

    That’s when Paul Green finally understood what he was getting when he paid for Michigan’s no-fault Personal Injury Protection.

    That insurance covered the hospital bills, the medication, the rehabilitation and other care Green’s son would need for years to come.

    Green says he can’t imagine what would have happened without that insurance coverage.

    “What am I going to do? How am I going to live? I mean, am I going to onto welfare program so I can take care of my son and, you know – I don’t know. With this insurance in place, it’s the most wonderful thing in the world.”

    But the insurance industry, some legislators, and Governor Snyder’s Insurance Commissioner say the no-fault Personal Injury Protection is not sustainable. It’s too generous. Payments to medical providers need to be cut back. And people severely hurt in the future should not get those unlimited lifetime benefits that are right now considered reasonable and necessary.

    Backers of the legislation say one of the reasons for the legislation to change the no-fault insurance is the growing number of people who have illegally dropped coverage. The insurance industry says it’s grown from about 11% of auto owners to nearly 20%. They blame insurance rates that are too high and the down economy.

    Kyle Logue is a professor of law at the University of Michigan. He teaches about insurance and the law. He says as auto-owners drop coverage, there’s less money for the companies to cover claims.

    “They want to lower overall insurance rates so that they can increase the size of their customer base.”

    Now, the Personal Injury Protection, or PIP, portion of auto insurance is not that much higher than the national average. According to 2008 data from the Insurance Information Institute it’s about 5% higher or $23 a year. Other portions of Michigan auto insurance premiums are much higher than the national average- Collision is 30% higher. Comprehensive coverage is 13% higher.

    Professor Logue says the industry is likely focusing on the Personal Injury Protection portion because it’s easier to change than trying to reduce the number of accidents, theft, or other kinds of auto claims.

    And I should make it clear, Logue thinks we should be talking about whether to continue this generous kind of coverage for catastrophic injuries. But, we should also be getting more and better information about what kind of savings we might be getting and what kind of benefits we might be losing.

    He’d like an apples-to-apples comparison of what would happen to someone in a catastrophic injury under the current system and under the proposed system.

    “Then let’s compare what the cost would be for those two things and then compare what the benefits would be if they happen to wind up suffering from one of these injuries and let’s see what we’re getting for our money. And I haven’t seen that yet.”

    As we’ve reported before, the insurance industry concedes that potentially people won’t get the same level of care they do now from their auto insurance. But the industry notes private health insurance or government health programs would pick up much of the cost. And an accident victim could sue to recover costs.

    Kyle Logue says that means some of the cost picked up be the current no-fault system would have to be picked up somewhere else.

    “So, the Blue Crosses and Blue Shields of the world would see their premiums go up and the taxes that are required to cover Medicare and Medicaid expenses would have to go up eventually. And so one interesting question would be is there a complete offset? Right? Would the amount of reduction in premiums in auto insurance be replaced by the increase in health insurance premiums?”

    It’s not clear. Because payouts for medical care would be reduced, the primary Personal Injury Protection coverage would last longer, but even then it’s not likely to cover all the necessary care.

    Jane Powers is a researcher at Public Sector Consultants. She put together a study for the Michigan Brain Injury Provider Council. She says the data she was able to gather on costs to treat someone with a brain injury didn’t include all of the medical expenses, but looking at in-patient costs and rehabilitation for the first year and then the average long term costs, it amounted to twice the minimum level of insurance that will be available under the proposed legislation.

    “We’re looking at more than $1 million over a lifetime just on those costs alone.”

    And that’s the average. Some accident victims will need care that costs much, much more.

    And Powers noted something else. Again, as we’ve reported in the past, the insurance industry mentions with many people already covered by health insurance, this is duplicative coverage. Powers says private health insurance is already tapped first in many catastrophic auto accidents. And it won’t last forever.

    “They’re not going to be able to work. Their private insurance is going to disappear because it’s most likely through their employer and connected to that employment. So, their private insurance will eventually disappear. They will be in a position where they have to exhaust all of their personal resources and their family assets. And eventually, then, they will end up eligible to go on to Medicaid.”

    And Powers suggests there will be more uncompensated care by hospitals and doctors which means health care costs for everyone else will likely go up.

    So, if these changes are passed by the legislature, what should you do to protect yourself?

    First, to get anything close to the current coverage, you’ll likely have to buy the highest Personal Injury Protection available, $5 million worth of coverage.

    But, since it’s likely most auto-owners will buy the minimum there’s another risk.

    Let’s say you spill your steaming hot coffee in your lap, blow through a stop sign and you cause and accident that hurts someone else. They don’t have enough money to cover their medical bills, so they sue you. You might need more coverage than your insurance automatically offers, so expect to pay more for enough coverage to protect you from a multi-million dollar lawsuit.

    Saving the $11 a month you pay for the current Personal Injury Protection system could end up costing you in other ways.

    While the insurance industry says we’ve got to do something about this “unsustainable” no-fault Personal Injury Protection auto insurance right now because the costs will only become greater in the future, some experts say the timing for that decision might be premature.

    We really don’t know what’s going to happen with healthcare in America over the next few years. The Congress passed and the President signed into law a healthcare restructuring plan that will dramatically change how many people will have health insurance in the future. It’s not unreasonable to think that that might reduce the burden on the fund that pays for catastrophic auto injuries and there might not be a financial crisis at all in the future.


    A 5 million pip would cost a person imo about 1500 to 2000 dollars a year fro 1 car.

    Like who is gona buy that?

    145.00 a year is cheap

    Art
    Art

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •