The American Spectator

Reader Mail

(Page 2 of 4)

But as time wore on (and on and on), I began to see that he was "too smart for his own good" and, by political osmosis, too smart for my good and too smart for the good of the people of Pennsylvania.

His recent notion of "bipartisanship" is precisely in keeping with the Democrats:  "Vote for what Democrats propose and otherwise keep your mouth shut."  He has done that all too well since they took over.

...except when he realizes that voting their way might hurt his re-election campaign, as when he abandoned his union-ingratiation position on ending the secret ballot in union elections, apparently assuming that his rhetorical brilliance will help Pennsylvanians to forget.

As he has gained seniority, he has become a pork butcher extraordinaire.  Although that might benefit some Pennsylvanians, it is part of the greatest problem with our government (before Obama became proto-dictator, that is).

As demonstrated by Mr. Lord's typically insightful analysis, apparently Specter has learned and assimilated completely  the slash-and-burn political expediency of the Clintonistas and Obamanistas:  change the subject, deflect criticism as "distractions," blame everybody else for everything, demonize your opponents, tear down, tear down again.

He claims that Toomey cannot be elected to the Senate.  Well, surprise everyone!  Specter can't either.  He has not only burned his bridges behind him, he has torn up the railroad tracks and sold the rails to feed his re-election campaign.

Worst of all, Specter -- a "Republican," mind you -- has accused Toomey of being -- spitting out the bitter taste in his mouth and shuddering at the mere thought of saying the word -- a CONSERVATIVE! Ooooooh! Well, if Toomey is nominated and loses the general election, at least Pennsylvanians will have had the opportunity to put a conservative in the Senate.  If Specter is nominated, we'll have a false choice between a flaming liberal (whoever the Democrats nominate) and a closet liberal.

I'll take my chances on the conservative.
-- A. C. Santore

PAY FOR WHAT YOU GET
Re: Eric Peters's The Car Insurance Scam:

Well Mr. Peters, in many states you can self insure if you can pony up the cash or alternately the bond. That is exactly what many corporations do that operate fleets.
-- John McGinnis
Arlington, Texas

I have been in the casualty insurance business for 40 years (come this June), and I can assure you that compulsory auto insurance is not an invention of the past 20 to 25 years. It was in place in a number of states before I entered the business, and enforcement has always been an issue.

As a libertarian conservative I sympathize with Eric Peters's view that the government should not impose mandatory insurance, if not with some other of his statements about the operation of auto insurance. The states usually require a low limit of "statutory" coverage, so the insurance industry now also sells "uninsured" and "underinsured" motorists coverage so we can get resources from our insurer to pay a serious bodily injury claim in cases where an irresponsible at-fault driver can't make good on his tort obligation to us because of lack or inadequacy of cover. And, of course, we good drivers buy first party collision insurance so there is coverage if money from the at-fault driver's insurance company is slow in coming or inadequate in amount.

The insurance companies are a pretty ineffective cartel. As financial concerns go, there is substantial ease of entry into the insurance business. Anyone who watches TV or reads his mail knows how much price competition goes on in the personal auto business. Profit margins are modest. Cartels usually restrict capacity, but the compulsory coverage laws have caused capacity expansion to meet the increased demand.  

I'm all in favor of getting rid of government-mandated compulsory coverage, but people should be aware of the probable effects of doing so. First, we good drivers (I haven't had an at-fault accident since the one single vehicle accident I did have in the early 70's) will have to protect ourselves from the financially irresponsible and the costs of such protection will rapidly increase, perhaps beyond the savings from not carrying liability coverage (at good driver rates). Second, should we have a momentary lapse in our driving skill and become that at-fault driver, the tort system will go after any resources we have been able to accumulate and possibly put us into bankruptcy. This may not be a problem if we are just out of school, but could be very significant if we are further along in our life. (I doubt that very many people on this blog aspire to be "judgment proof".)  Many responsible people purchase well above compulsory liability limits for that very reason, and thus would do so even if auto liability insurance were not compulsory. I, myself, spend about a thousand dollars a year for a regular liability policy and an umbrella liability policy that in combination provide over $2M in liability protection because I want to protect my assets. It takes a lot of one thousand dollar payments to provide coverage for a $2M liability case (and believe me they exist), along with funding for all the more moderately valued auto accidents that occur. In the non-compulsory auto insurance world the responsible people will also be purchasing direct protection that will be more expensive because of the larger numbers of uninsured.

Let's take our libertarian case a bit further. In a free market world, the roads will be owned by businesses, not by the government. Should we still have a tort system, it may well be possible for those injured on the highways to sue not only the at-fault driver, but also the business who allowed that driver onto the private road. (You don't get to do that with the government.) The business almost certainly will require an individual using its roadway to provide proof of insurance, and probably in much higher amounts than is currently required by governments. These businesses may also require the use of specific insurance companies, or, at least, insurance companies from a list of the most highly rated insurers. Frankly, I would prefer such a system to the current one. But I doubt it would lead to the consumer "savings" postulated by Mr. Peters.
-- Stephen Zierak
Kansas City, Missouri