No Pip For You

[AlternativeSolutionsPlus]

If you break the law by doing things like driving drunk, fleeing police, knowingly riding in stolen vehicles and entering the country illegally, you might not be eligible for insurance benefits in a car accident under a package of bills that moved along today.

 

Under HB 4993, HB 5587, HB 5588 and HB 5589, offenders in certain cases would not be eligible for personal injury protection (PIP), which provides for medical and related benefits for victims of an automobile accident (See "No Car Accident Benefits For Law Breakers?" 5/24/12).

 

HB 4993, sponsored by Rep. Eileen KOWALL (R-White Lake), would prevent people from receiving PIP benefits if they are not legally present in the United States under a substitute version of the bill unanimously adopted today.

 

The Department of Civil Rights put in a card in opposition to the bill. The Coalition Protecting Auto No-Fault (CPAN) and the Brain Injury Association also put in cards in opposition to the bill.

 

HB 4993 was reported out 11-3, with Reps. Andrew KANDREVAS (D-Southgate), Marcia HOVEY-WRIGHT (D-Muskegon) and Doug GEISS (D-Taylor) voting against the bill.

 

House Minority Floor Leader Kate SEGAL (D-Battle Creek) and Rep. Lisa HOWZE (D-Detroit) passed on the bill.

 

HB 5587, sponsored by Rep. Cindy DENBY (R-Fowlerville), would prevent someone from receiving PIP if they use a vehicle in the commission of a felony as defined in the Michigan Vehicle Code under a substitute version of the bill adopted today.

 

CPAN supported the bill with the changes that were made.

 

Kandrevas and Geiss voted against reporting the bill out of committee. Segal, Hovey-Wright and Howze passed on the vote.

 

Kandrevas voiced opposition to the bill because it would not require someone to be proven guilty in order to be excluded from benefits.

 

HB 5588, sponsored by Rep. Margaret [O'BRIEN] (R-Portage), would prohibit PIP for people who are visibly intoxicated, visibly impaired or legally drunk under a substitute adopted today. It would no longer apply to anyone with a trace amount of a controlled substance in their system, responding to concerns expressed about the impact of the bill as originally written on people with prescription drugs in their system.

 

The Michigan Health and Hospital Association put in a card in opposition to the bill. CPAN and the Brain Injury Association also opposed the bill.

 

Kandrevas proposed an amendment that he said would only exclude people from PIP benefits if someone had been convicted of three drunk driving misdemeanors in 10 years. He again voiced concern that the bill does not require a conviction.

 

Lund asked to clarify whether someone who was driving could blow above the legal limit on a breathalyzer test and still receive PIP benefits under Kandrevas' amendment. Kandrevas said that was accurate.

 

His amendment failed on party lines, with Rep. Roy SCHMIDT (R-Grand Rapids) passing on the vote.

 

O'Brien proposed an amendment that would make sure the bill does not impact minors.

 

The amendment was approved unanimously, except for a pass vote from Schmidt.

 

HB 5588 was reported out on party lines, except for a pass vote from Schmidt.

 

MIRS asked Lund whether he thought Kandrevas' argument about the bills being unfair for not requiring convictions was a fair point.

 

"I don't think the rest of us are paying into insurance because we want to help drunk drivers or we want to help felons," Lund said.

 

He said he would rather ruin the life of a drunk driver "than the innocent lives they're risking by going out and driving drunk."

 

HB 5589, sponsored by Rep. Ben GLARDON (R-Owosso), would eliminate PIP for people in a vehicle they knew was stolen or used in the fleeing of a felony.

 

CPAN and the Brain Injury Association opposed the bill.

 

Segal proposed an amendment that she said would protect children who may take their family members' cars without "the permission they thought they had."

 

She said she didn't want children to pay for the rest of their lives for a mistake.

 

Rep. Lisa Posthumus LYONS (R-Alto) offered to work on the amendment on the floor with Segal. Segal then withdrew her amendment.

 

HB 5589 was reported out 11-4, with Segal passing on the vote and Kandrevas, Hovey-Wright, Howze and Geiss voting against the bill.

 

http://www.mirsnews....9%2331471#31471

Edited June 8, 2012 by AlternativeSolutionsPlus

[Dr. Bob]

Problem with this is that it just shifts the cost of caring for people injured in car accidents due to being drunk behind the wheel from the insurance companies to the healthcare industry. You can't refuse surgery on someone with a ruptured spleen because their insurance company won't pay for it. You just do it because it is life and death and eat the cost. So there is no savings, this bill is just designed to maximize profits for the insurance company at the expense of what is already a very thin level of solvency for hospitals. But you can bet your insurance rates will go up, even though none of that increase goes towards paying for your medical care.

 

Increasing the penalty for those that drive drunk, restricting their licenses, putting BAL devices on their ignitions, making them financially responsible for the impact on society of their irresponsible behavior... these are fine. Make THEM responsible for their actions. But simply shifting the blame for their poor choices to another group not only isn't fair, but doesn't hold those who create the problem in the frst place responsible for their own actions.

 

If you want to make a difference in the problem, offer treatment for the offenders. If that fails, hold them responsible for their actions.

 

Dr. Bob

Edited June 8, 2012 by Dr. Bob

[Croppled1]

Would this in anyway effect a patient through program participation ? This seems to really be a attempt to take responsabillity away from the State and push it on the Federal Government and hospitals . These individuals will need care regardless and we all make mistakes . Am I missing something there ? It would be terrible for a patient driving to be accused of being impaired subjectively or under what we know are standards that 100% are not verifyable of impairment under 5 nanogram or less tests for metablolites like exists in Nevada now and their trying to pass with the legalization bill in the State of Washington opposed by many legalization activists and patients for that reason .It is a fact of life that patients who leave their home states often must read the rules of the road everywhere due to zero tolerance legislation or DUID metabolite limits that could result in terrible consequences for just using their legally recommended medicine . Normal has created a conundrum for patients with its tax and regulate like alchohal campaign to spur legalization reform in the minds of the public . Medicinal Cannabis does not have the dehabillitating effects of alchohal which is toxic on patients accustom to it's effects using it as medicine .

Edited June 8, 2012 by Croppled1

[Dr. Bob]

Don't know. Ask the folks that posted it for analysis of what they put up.

 

Dr. Bob