Abstract
Opponents of the federal Auto Choice Reform Act’ contend that any premium savings the legislation would produce would come at too great a price–the loss of benefits for injured people. If that were truly the case, then the opponents would have a legitimate argument. In fact, there is so much waste in the present system that the personal injury protection (PIP) reform option of Auto Choice, by eliminating the waste, can provide both dramatically lower premiumsandbetter compensation of economic loss, primarily medical bills and lost wages.
Article Footnote
S.837 and H.R.1475, 106th Cong.,1st Sess. (1999). (The sponsors of the bills in the 106th Congress intended to introduce nearly identical bills in the 107th Congress.)2 Joint Economic Committee(lEC),Auto Choice:Impact on Cities and the Poor, 34–36(March 1998).Preliminary work by the author of the study indicates that the use of the new, higher RAND estimates cited in note 3 infra would increase aggregate savings to approximately $41 billion in 200 I and $493 billion for the period from 200 I to 2110
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2001 Kluwer Academic Publishers
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kinzler, P., O’Connell, J. (2001). More for Less Under Auto Choice. In: Lascher, E.L., Powers, M.R. (eds) The Economics and Politics of Choice No-Fault Insurance. Huebner International Series on Risk, Insurance and Economic Security, vol 24. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1541-8_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1541-8_11
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-0-7923-7467-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-4615-1541-8
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive