Simply Junior

Looking around the US, all but three states mandate drivers to carry liability insurance. Some states have no-fault schemes. Others add in a requirement to buy a personal injury protection policy. As the healthcare reform bill was signed into law, many asked whether all insurance mandates were unconstitutional. This is a fun debating topic which sounds possible but will get nowhere. States have always had the right to impose conditions on people’s voluntary activities. If you want to drive, you have to carry liability insurance to pay compensation to anyone else you may injure. A more interesting question is the amount of the minimum requirements imposed by your state’s lawmakers.

Most of these minimums have not been changed for thirty and more years. For example, in 1972, Maryland set $20,000 for a person injured subject to a maximum of $40,000 for losses arising out of a single traffic accident. This was intended to cover medical treatment, loss of earnings while recovering, and so on. In 1972, the average annual salary was $12,000 and most hospitals charged no more than a few hundred dollars for treatment. Most new vehicles cost less than $4,000 to put on the road. You could easily buy a new home for less than $30,000. Looking back now, you wonder how we managed on so little money. Prices have risen fast for medical treatment. Injure the wrong person and the claim against you for loss of earnings is going to be frightening. Why should this matter?The liability coverage only pays out the minimum. You get to pick up the bill for all the other losses. So any savings or property you have may be taken to satisfy a judgment against you.

Should states increase their minimums? Many are thinking about doing so, but the politics of actually making new laws is difficult. During the recession, people are under financial pressure. Forcing them to spend more on vehicle insurance is not going to be popular among the poorer sections of the electorate. For the middle classes, there is the option to buy more coverage including an uninsured and underinsured policy. This is the American way. Those who have money can use it to protect themselves against losses. Those who are poor must take life as it comes.

In Maryland, the legislators have just increased the minimums to $30,000/60,000. This is curiously unreal. An increase to match the rate of inflation since 1972 should make the minimums $100,000/200,000. But, the political situation does not permit the lawmakers to restore the value of the minimums overnight. The answer was annual increases to inflation-proof the amounts. We would have arrived at $100,000 without anyone being too upset about it. But we have grown used to accepting the cheapest solutions even though millions of people across America actually lose money because of it. Why millions of people? These are all the victims of bad driving who never recover anything more than the minimums and suffer major financial losses as a result. This is injustice on a massive scale. And it will never be cured because it would cost too much to make the necessary increases. The only people who come out of this smiling are the investors in the auto insurance industry. Their profits and dividends have been rising steadily despite the recession. To protect yourself, always get auto insurance quotes from this site to find the most affordable coverage. Insurance may be mandated but you don’t have to pay excessive premiums.

Let’s leave the politics of healthcare reform to one side and focus on a proposal to change the law to allow free market competition between insurers in different states. A policy consistently mentioned by the Republican party is to break the state monopolies in the insurance market. Since the 1800′s, the individual states have claimed the sole right to regulate the sale of insurance within their own borders. Each state has asserted the right to license insurance companies and to set the terms on which they can conduct business. This has led to a patchwork of different sets of regulations with each state creating unique laws. In turn, this forces an insurance company to set up separate subsidiaries to trade in each state. No licensed company can sell a policy to someone who has a residence in another state. There was a brief moment in 1944 when a decision of the Supreme Court allowed the possibility of federal supervision. But the lawmakers in Washington immediately changed the law to retain state control. Why is this a bad thing? The national insurance companies have divided up the states between them and choose not to compete against each other. This keeps the number of insurance companies in each state artificially low and, because there is no real competition, premium rates are higher than they should be for weak policy terms.

You are reading this article on the internet. When online, you can buy more or less any product or service across state or national boundaries. Although there are some restrictions, e.g. some states limit your right to import drugs from foreign countries, there is an almost free market where you can search for the cheapest price and buy whatever you need. There is no possible economic justification for retaining this historical privilege for insurance companies. All it does is preserve their ability to maximize their profits at your expense. For example, in Minnesota three insurance companies dominate 80% of the market for health plans. There is no doubt that, if more companies entered the market, the premium rates would fall. During his run for President, Senator John McCain was in favor of free markets for health plans. President Obama supports it and the proposal is in both versions of the healthcare reform bills currently stalled in Washington. But because the Republican party’s only policy is to oppose everything the Democrats propose, it seems even this simple change in the law may be lost. What will the result be? The anticompetitive behavior of the insurance industry will continue and you, the consumer, will suffer.

Could the law change tomorrow and allow everyone access to cheap health insurance wherever it can be found? The problem is that the states have different sets of regulations and compliance leads to different costs. The playing fields are not level. So, premiums are significantly lower in those states which have the fewest consumer protections. It would not be fair competition if people living in Minnesota, which has strong consumer protections, could all get health insurance quotes from states with little or no consumer protections. The only way in which there could be a free market is to have a single set of federal regulations for the sale of health insurance plans. Sadly, the political parties do not want to talk about this even though we would all benefit. In the US, the political elite’s interests do not match the needs of the ordinary citizens.