There's been a proposal in California for years, but insurance companies are NOT happy about it -- what a surprise
Actually it is a surprise.
The proposal has been for auto insurance to be covered by a surtax on gasoline, much of which would go to highway funds for repair and maintenance of the state roads and bridges, and would be managed by a consortium of all the insurance companies licensed to operate in the state, who would then divide up the profits accordingly (according to what, I've never heard) BUT -- the radical and innovative part of the plan is/was that surtax:
Having your insurance premium payments be included in a surtax on gasoline would mean that pretty much everyone in the state who is driving would be insured (something I would think the insurance companies would like),* but that would also mean the larger, more fuel-guzzling a vehicle you own, the more you pay annually for gas and insurance. And the larger, more road-destroying a vehicle you drive,the more you pay for road repair.
Of course, it's been slapped down or disparaged or mostly ignored each time someone brings it up. But it should benefit everyone. The insurance companies which would be getting insurance payments from some 100,000 or so drivers who are now not paying them anything. Certainly the environment would benefit from less burning of hydrocarbons. And for a driver, the libertarian in us should be pleased that each of us would be able to control how much we pay for insurance each year.
Which, I guess, makes it too logical and sensible to ever be approved.
-----------
*My car was recently hit by a truck as I was turning into a gas station and the driver was uninsured. It cost my insurance company something like $6000 for repairs. I would assume they'd be much happier if they were to be reimbursed for that. But I guess I'm to unsophisticated to understand such things.
The proposal has been for auto insurance to be covered by a surtax on gasoline, much of which would go to highway funds for repair and maintenance of the state roads and bridges, and would be managed by a consortium of all the insurance companies licensed to operate in the state, who would then divide up the profits accordingly (according to what, I've never heard) BUT -- the radical and innovative part of the plan is/was that surtax:
Having your insurance premium payments be included in a surtax on gasoline would mean that pretty much everyone in the state who is driving would be insured (something I would think the insurance companies would like),* but that would also mean the larger, more fuel-guzzling a vehicle you own, the more you pay annually for gas and insurance. And the larger, more road-destroying a vehicle you drive,the more you pay for road repair.
Of course, it's been slapped down or disparaged or mostly ignored each time someone brings it up. But it should benefit everyone. The insurance companies which would be getting insurance payments from some 100,000 or so drivers who are now not paying them anything. Certainly the environment would benefit from less burning of hydrocarbons. And for a driver, the libertarian in us should be pleased that each of us would be able to control how much we pay for insurance each year.
Which, I guess, makes it too logical and sensible to ever be approved.
-----------
*My car was recently hit by a truck as I was turning into a gas station and the driver was uninsured. It cost my insurance company something like $6000 for repairs. I would assume they'd be much happier if they were to be reimbursed for that. But I guess I'm to unsophisticated to understand such things.
posted by Saintperle at
8:39 AM
