Date Posted:18:50:33 01/10/06 Tue Author: Bembix Subject: Hmmmm . . . In reply to:
Jean
's message, "I think...." on 10:41:10 01/10/06 Tue
Here's where you and I would part.
If I slam my car into you and hurt you, I'm just as responsible whether or not I'm under the influence. If I'm a doctor and hurt a patient, I'm responsible for any short or long term damage, regardless of whether or not I'm under the influence. And so forth.
I don't think that being under the influence has anything to do with it. Responsibility is responsibility.
Here's what I would do. If I had the ability to deregulate insurance, I'd allow policies to be written something like this. If you get in an accident and it is determined that you were driving under the influence, your policy is void. Period. You must pay damages out of your own pocket. Now, if people had no insurance to rely upon for their carelessness, they might think twice.
Of course, there would still probably be a market for insuring people who are high risk due to substance abuse, and they would cover such accidents, but they would also charge a much, much higher premium unfettered by government regulations.
