Insurance companies are dictating our legislation say some sections that are opposed to the proposed changes


Insurance companies are dictating our legislation say some sections that are opposed to the proposed changesMichigan currently offers it residents, reasonable and necessary medical cover for victims involved in motor vehicle accidents as per the no-fault law. However, the proposed House Bill 4936 is aimed at bringing about reforms in the current auto insurance systems, which allow us to choose the level of PIP protection. This proposal is meant to bring about changes that will help save money for the Michigan residents and will make auto insurance far more affordable for thousands of drivers who remain uninsured.

While there are some sections that are opposing these new changes, insurance companies are happy to see these changes and are going all out paying for commercials and billboards across the state, in a bid to encourage people to make their ‘choice.’ however, what is not mentioned is the fact that by opting for these new reforms, the residents will be giving up the assurance to receive full rehabilitative care even if they suffer catastrophic injuries in a motor vehicle accident.

Not everyone has health insurance and this move could prove to be disastrous. If we had health insurance, then we could probably rely on that to a large extent although they don’t cover some of the needed services. The sections that are opposing these new changes claim that the insurance companies have failed to mention this and if people make this ‘choice’ it will result in residents having to turn to the legislation as well as Medicaid to seek funds to cover medical costs following an accident, since most of us will not be able to opt for higher levels of coverage that we may like to choose.

The pertinent question that those opposing the reforms are asking is – why are insurance companies being allowed to dictate our legislation? Although everyone is aware of the fact that auto insurance has to be made more affordable, these benefits are only likely to account for 30% of the premiums.

So, as of now, it seems like insurance companies have successfully misled the legislators into believing that a person who cannot afford paying $5,000 can easily afford a premium of $4,500. Instead this section feels that the lawmakers must look at reducing the 60%, which makes up for the auto insurance costs and also look at the profits that insurance companies make. They also feel that there must be guarantees that the auto insurance premiums would be lowered and the reduction in premiums should be sustained.