|
Ron Jackson's Perspective
The Sunday Journal -
Think
Kankakee, Illinois
March 16, 2003
Insurance credit
tie-in laughable |
 |
|
Experience has its benefits.
One of the benefits of having driving experience was reduced
insurance rates. In Illinois, a good driving record may not
matter as much as your spending record if insurance companies and
some politicians get their way.
"The concept is someone who is responsible in one area
of their life will be more responsible in another area. If you
pay your bills on time, you may be more likely to drive safely,"
said Denny Jacobs, D-East Moline.
"This cause and effect concept is stupid," says me,
I-Kankakee. This idea is comparable to believing that a very
happy unmarried driver is more likely to get into an accident than
is a very unhappy married person with three kids who has just lost
his job. And since cars are not gender specific, why are
insurance rates discriminately based on whether you leave the toilet
seat up or down? How can anyone arbitrarily correlate driving
responsibly to financial responsibility? This concept allows
that wealthy people who pay all their bills on time yet have six DUI
convictions would be less an insurance risk than a little old lady
on a fixed income who only drives on Sunday but has a few late
utility payments.
Do we punish the thousands of drivers who may have some
history of late student loan payments by upping their insurance
premiums while rewarding the drug dealers with lower rates because
they have no credit history since they pay for everything with cash?
Don't target individuals only. What about the
state government of Illinois? What type of insurance rates
would it receive for having a less than stellar payment history?
Would this same concept apply to corporate insurance? After
bankruptcy, would K-Mart or United Airlines have their insurance
increased?
Again, this concept is stupid and unfair.
Correlating health and life insurance rates to smoking or other bad
personal choice habits is understandable. But comparing money
management to driving ability is like pricing shoes according to the
number of teeth a person has.
A much more equitable automobile insurance system would
be one that required drivers to pay for insurance based on the exact
amount of driving they do. One way to implement such a plan
would be to add say, a $1 insurance tax to the price of gasoline.
That way, every moving vehicle would be insured and the fuel gauge
could serve as proof of insurance. Drivers would have total
control of their insurance costs, too.
If people wanted to reduce their insurance costs, they
could stop driving, share a ride with others, buy a more
fuel-efficient vehicle or use public transportation. If a car
is caught on a highway without any gas, the driver could be fined
for having an uninsured vehicle. All road service calls for
gas would be handled by police who would deliver gas and a citation
for non-insurance.
This concept would end the uninsured motorist worry and
would encourage fuel conservation. Maybe even we SUV owners
would get what we deserved by paying more for gas and insurance.
I could agree with establishing car insurance rates
according to the amount of free monthly minutes drivers have on
their cell phone plan or how often they stop at a drive-thru fast
food restaurant.
I can't agree with penalizing people who may have lost
their job and suddenly found themselves unable to meet their
liabilities. Especially, if their job loss was due to a poor
economy, scandalous executive management or a family catastrophe.
If this silly insurance based on credit history notion
catches on, the next thing you know employers will be giving merit
raises and promotions based on the number of vowels in your name. |
|
|
Thanks for stopping by! |
|
|
Home
| About | What's New |
Books | Columns |
Archives |
Seminars | Search |
Contact |
| |
|
|
|
