It should be noted for those that have no knowledge of a bill being passed in WI making mandatory auto insurance a law in WI in 2010. I think this is important for those who do not live in WI to know, as well as some that do (without auto insurance at this time).
I am personally relieved/delighted that WI has made this move to the dismay of some insurance lobbyist.
Way to go Russ. Reward those without insurance to the same degree as those responsible citizens that have insurance.
And these politicians wonder why their ratings are in the tank?
I could be wrong, but I don’t think this ‘insurance clause’ is about rewarding people that carry insurance. I think it’s more about keeping people from trading in cars that have been parked in their front yards for years and were not regularly driven. The idea is to stimulate the economy and help the environment – not to hand out $4500 for every piece of junk out there that isn’t impacting anyone’s life.
I am so happy that WI has seen the folly of punishing regular peolple who cant afford to pay for insurance. To do otherwise is to punish the poor and homeless. Everyone deserves an equal chance in lifes lottery and about time the government recognizes this.
Your comments are always good for a laugh as I can’t take them seriously. Those that pay their bills and work are as much “regular people” as anyone else and we are who “O” will tag for more taxes to benefit the “poor and homeless” for healthcare, as you put it – you think the homeless are able to participate in this program at all? Apparently you are just some moron that likes to try to stir things up but you need to actually say something intelligent for that to happen.
Yes Rosie is always good for a laugh, but this time she has it wrong. WI maybe one of the few states that doesn’t currently requrire insurance, but our Governor just signed a bill that will make this a requirement and with limits of at least 50,000/100,000. I can’t remember when it becomes effective, since I don’t sell insurance, and my current limits are signifacantly higher than that.
Rosie will really be happy now because with the latest budget bill in Wisconsin the governor paid back his trial lawyer buddies by burying new mandatory insurance limits in the budget bill. Now you will have to carry 100/300 UIM/UM coverage and med pay must be at least 10K. So now there will be even more uninsured motorists on Wisconsin roads.
We need a cash for old appliances. I need a new energy effcient refrigerator and washer dryer. Think of all the energy we could save with that. And GE is a pal of Obama, so we may see that. And then we need a cash for old furnaces and air conditioners. And maybe cash for old tvs and stereos. The new flat screen lcds use about 10% of the energy of the old tude tvs. Help me out here Rosie. The Government has unlimited money you know. Let go for the gold and not stop at autos.
Funny how the feds draw the line on the wrong side for me all the time. I pay my taxes, I abide by the law, but yet because I pay my bills (mortgage) on time I get no help. Because I drive an 02, I do not qualify. I left my employment on my own free will so I do not qualify for the COBRA Subsidy.
I do not make a ton of money and struggle from check to check, keeping my head above water. These people that made poor decision benefit from my tax dollars.
Lillie, I don’t believe the insurance industry was against the mandatory insurance provision as your post implies. After all why would they be against something that increases their customer base?
The original bill would have raised the FR limits from 25/50 to 100/300, making them among the highest in the nation and resulting in hefty increases in premium to insureds carrying the current limits. It was felt that this would tend to increase the number of unisured cars.
The original bill also had tax implications and we all know that insurance companies would have passed those taxes on to the insureds.
One other thing the original bill was tacked on the the budget bill.
While I’d like to see FR limits at the 100/300 limit that would hit families with limited incomes very hard.
The requirement of having had insurance on your “clunker” for one year, I agree is so that people couldn’t haul out old cars they found while mowing the lawn, but also, buying an old clunker for 500 bucks and getting 4,500 for it. So everyone in Wisconsin will do this and the rest of the states won’t be able to? So then they’ll change it for all and pass another $2 or 3 Billion to take care of that problem, etc., etc. Obama — did anyone ever tell you can’t please all the people all the time? Quit printing money and lead the country don’t try to be more popular.
The idea of “Cash for Clunkers” was a sound one. Clearly the administration saw this program as a way to stimulate the economy by helping the struggling auto industry, while getting older, gas-guzzlers.
It appears that the program has been rather successful. The important thing is not whether they had insurance on the clunker; but that they get insurance on the new car. I promise you, Insurance agents can also use a bit of a “Stimulus Program”
You say that, until you get hit by an uninsured driver. Then you will hit the roof when they come up with empty pockets. Why should you be punished because someone else was negligent, caused an accident, now you have doctor bills and are out of a car, thru no fault of your own.
I have been driving an auto purchased new in 1997 that gets 35mpg. I would like to buy a new car and the $4500 would make the deal. Problem is I am being discriminated against because I have chosen to be frugal for the past 12 years. Just think of all the fuel I could have otherwise wasted and gett $4500 as a reward.
A sound idea? Just keep doling out the money after all the govt owes you right? And the clumkers are being destroyed, while many go without a vehicle at all. It doesn’t make sense to me. If you can’t afford insurance on your clunker can you really afford a new car?
It should be noted for those that have no knowledge of a bill being passed in WI making mandatory auto insurance a law in WI in 2010. I think this is important for those who do not live in WI to know, as well as some that do (without auto insurance at this time).
I am personally relieved/delighted that WI has made this move to the dismay of some insurance lobbyist.
Wow!
Way to go Russ. Reward those without insurance to the same degree as those responsible citizens that have insurance.
And these politicians wonder why their ratings are in the tank?
I could be wrong, but I don’t think this ‘insurance clause’ is about rewarding people that carry insurance. I think it’s more about keeping people from trading in cars that have been parked in their front yards for years and were not regularly driven. The idea is to stimulate the economy and help the environment – not to hand out $4500 for every piece of junk out there that isn’t impacting anyone’s life.
This is uttter Bulls**t.
Rewarding miscreants who are too cheap to buy auto insurance (liability) to protect other people?
Whatever bureacrats allowed this needs to be strung up
I am so happy that WI has seen the folly of punishing regular peolple who cant afford to pay for insurance. To do otherwise is to punish the poor and homeless. Everyone deserves an equal chance in lifes lottery and about time the government recognizes this.
Your comments are always good for a laugh as I can’t take them seriously. Those that pay their bills and work are as much “regular people” as anyone else and we are who “O” will tag for more taxes to benefit the “poor and homeless” for healthcare, as you put it – you think the homeless are able to participate in this program at all? Apparently you are just some moron that likes to try to stir things up but you need to actually say something intelligent for that to happen.
Yes Rosie is always good for a laugh, but this time she has it wrong. WI maybe one of the few states that doesn’t currently requrire insurance, but our Governor just signed a bill that will make this a requirement and with limits of at least 50,000/100,000. I can’t remember when it becomes effective, since I don’t sell insurance, and my current limits are signifacantly higher than that.
Rosie will really be happy now because with the latest budget bill in Wisconsin the governor paid back his trial lawyer buddies by burying new mandatory insurance limits in the budget bill. Now you will have to carry 100/300 UIM/UM coverage and med pay must be at least 10K. So now there will be even more uninsured motorists on Wisconsin roads.
We need a cash for old appliances. I need a new energy effcient refrigerator and washer dryer. Think of all the energy we could save with that. And GE is a pal of Obama, so we may see that. And then we need a cash for old furnaces and air conditioners. And maybe cash for old tvs and stereos. The new flat screen lcds use about 10% of the energy of the old tude tvs. Help me out here Rosie. The Government has unlimited money you know. Let go for the gold and not stop at autos.
Funny how the feds draw the line on the wrong side for me all the time. I pay my taxes, I abide by the law, but yet because I pay my bills (mortgage) on time I get no help. Because I drive an 02, I do not qualify. I left my employment on my own free will so I do not qualify for the COBRA Subsidy.
I do not make a ton of money and struggle from check to check, keeping my head above water. These people that made poor decision benefit from my tax dollars.
Lillie, I don’t believe the insurance industry was against the mandatory insurance provision as your post implies. After all why would they be against something that increases their customer base?
The original bill would have raised the FR limits from 25/50 to 100/300, making them among the highest in the nation and resulting in hefty increases in premium to insureds carrying the current limits. It was felt that this would tend to increase the number of unisured cars.
The original bill also had tax implications and we all know that insurance companies would have passed those taxes on to the insureds.
One other thing the original bill was tacked on the the budget bill.
While I’d like to see FR limits at the 100/300 limit that would hit families with limited incomes very hard.
The requirement of having had insurance on your “clunker” for one year, I agree is so that people couldn’t haul out old cars they found while mowing the lawn, but also, buying an old clunker for 500 bucks and getting 4,500 for it. So everyone in Wisconsin will do this and the rest of the states won’t be able to? So then they’ll change it for all and pass another $2 or 3 Billion to take care of that problem, etc., etc. Obama — did anyone ever tell you can’t please all the people all the time? Quit printing money and lead the country don’t try to be more popular.
The idea of “Cash for Clunkers” was a sound one. Clearly the administration saw this program as a way to stimulate the economy by helping the struggling auto industry, while getting older, gas-guzzlers.
It appears that the program has been rather successful. The important thing is not whether they had insurance on the clunker; but that they get insurance on the new car. I promise you, Insurance agents can also use a bit of a “Stimulus Program”
You say that, until you get hit by an uninsured driver. Then you will hit the roof when they come up with empty pockets. Why should you be punished because someone else was negligent, caused an accident, now you have doctor bills and are out of a car, thru no fault of your own.
I have been driving an auto purchased new in 1997 that gets 35mpg. I would like to buy a new car and the $4500 would make the deal. Problem is I am being discriminated against because I have chosen to be frugal for the past 12 years. Just think of all the fuel I could have otherwise wasted and gett $4500 as a reward.
A sound idea? Just keep doling out the money after all the govt owes you right? And the clumkers are being destroyed, while many go without a vehicle at all. It doesn’t make sense to me. If you can’t afford insurance on your clunker can you really afford a new car?