[ram2]

Ohio does not have no fault and has lower auto insurance rates compared to Michigan.

[Driller1]

Originally Posted by kcam213

That is the same impression I get. Otherwise, what is the reason that is given for using this form of insurance?

To me it seems to be a rip off. I pay full coverage insurance yet if I damage someone else's property, my insurance company is only required to pay them $500.

BTW,
@Driller:

I just realized that something you wrote earlier is confusing to me.

If I hit your car, you can't get anything more than $500 from my insurance. But if I hit a "commercial truck, house, or your well drill" I should have millions of dollars of coverage to cover for the damage.

Why? Why can't the person with the damaged car get some of that million dollar coverage too?

I don't get that.

Sure.....but, your policy would have to have that much in the limit.

I just looked at a freinds and his was $40,000.

[marchelou]

Currently every insured automobile in the state of Michigan is paying $162.30 for the "misused" Catastophic Fund next year this will cost drivers
$180.00 per car (this assessment is hidden in the PIP portion of your bill).
Every injured person deserves medical care, but not extravagant living on
the backs of people who can barely afford their insurance costs. This is outrageous! We have paid BILLIONS into this fund since 1979. It's no wonder Snider wants to get his hands on it and he probably will!

[merit1sje]

marchelou, Interesting that you should mention this as I also know of someone who will be on the recieving end of a home too (compliments of the MCCA) due to an auto accident that left him para plegic. I have scanned through a lot of these bills (see link) and have yet to come across anything that would define "reasonable" coverage as something that includes a home for the victim and other "questionables" that would seem to go beyond what you and I consider "reasonable" or necessary. Michigan Legislature - Search Results Like yourself (and a few others that I have talked to), I also have an issue with this. Though my feelings and thoughts go out to anyone (and their families) who would find themselves in a lifetime of disability, there has to be a limit.

[Driller1]

Originally Posted by merit1sje

marchelou, Interesting that you should mention this as I also know of someone who will be on the recieving end of a home too (compliments of the MCCA) due to an auto accident that left him para plegic. I have scanned through a lot of these bills (see link) and have yet to come across anything that would define "reasonable" coverage as something that includes a home for the victim and other "questionables" that would seem to go beyond what you and I consider "reasonable" or necessary. Michigan Legislature - Search Results Like yourself (and a few others that I have talked to), I also have an issue with this. Though my feelings and thoughts go out to anyone (and their families) who would find themselves in a lifetime of disability, there has to be a limit.

It is the way the doctor writes the orders.

Some doctors are more client friendly.

[Driller1]

Originally Posted by ram2

Ohio does not have no fault and has lower auto insurance rates compared to Michigan.

Apples to oranges.

[ram2]

Originally Posted by Driller1

Apples to oranges.

Why?

[Driller1]

Originally Posted by ram2

Why?

They are not the same.

Does Ohio have lost wages, lifetime medical or, replacement services.??

[ram2]

Originally Posted by Driller1

They are not the same.

Does Ohio have lost wages, lifetime medical or, replacement services.??

Are Ohio residents suffering due to lower-cost auto insurance? What about Connecticut, where they wisely disbanded no fault?

[Driller1]

Originally Posted by ram2

Are Ohio residents suffering due to lower-cost auto insurance? What about Connecticut, where they wisely disbanded no fault?

Then you knew the difference.

Again.....Michigan is expensive...until you need it.