Mcca


S

Sheldon

New member
This is a little know Michigan added tax that everyone who owns a vehicle pays... Whats it for?

It is a law that gives criminals money... called `the MCCA assessment recoupment. A Michigan law to cover uninsured motorist in an accident.

If you look on your vehicle policy you already pay for this and they are already covered for $100,000.00 and every insured motorist pays for this.
Michigan then hits us up a second time, (can you say double jeopardy) to again cover something that is against the law, in short if your vehicle is not insured you are in violation and are not to drive it.
On my motorcycle policy this amounts to rough number here but 104% (not a typo that is one hundred and four percent) of the actual policy cost added to the total I must pay!!!

All this to protect someone that is openly violating the law!!! Do away with the MCCA and let the violators deal with their lack of respect for the law them self, it's called personal responsibility!!!!

Now pass this one to every insured driver you know in Michigan and tell them to contact their Sate Senator and Representive... That is unless you are OK with giving away extra money to the state for criminals!

JIC you do not know who that is here are the links to find them!!

Link Removed

Michigan House of Representatives
 

Aren't you being a little selfish here. After all criminals only excist because society made them that way. You should be delighted to pay for this. Apparently most voters are ok with this because they keep re-electing the idots that make this possible.:sarcastic:
 
G50AE, are you try to suggest that we make some decisions for our selves. That is unAmerican and antigovernment. We can't have that. Isn't government the answer? Now I'm confused.:sarcastic:
 
Your summary of the law is a bit off. No fault is a misnomer. You don't sue the other side for medical bills, but you still have to sue the other side for pain and suffering. For example, if I had an injury in automobile accident which required the amputation of my leg, my carrier would pay for the cost of the amputation. It would also cover the prosthesis, but it would not compensate me for the loss of my leg. I have to turn to the other side for that. If that guy did not have insurance, my only recourse would be this fund.

I'm new to this forum and I don't know how far it is permissible to stray. I would only add that not everyone who owns a gun is necessarily a member of the GOP. I find myself asking what does this have to do with guns?
 
I find myself asking what does this have to do with guns?
Click to expand...
Nothing it is just another intrusion by a State government into our lives, kind of like our suppressor law, we can't have, own, posses, or it is huge fine time, but the State decides what is good for us, shoves in down our throats, and now the new Republican Governor is acting like a democrat... AKA let's tax our way to prosperity on the backs of the worker, and now retiree pensions.... Life lesson here guys, give them an inch and they will take a football field....

Just a heads up, forum heading is "Michigan Discussion and Firearm News" doesn't say it has to be both.....
 
Atty Stu
Kind of suspicious about mouthpieces lurking around these kind of forums. especially when they let you know by their intro!
 
Atty Stu said:
If that guy did not have insurance, my only recourse would be this fund.
Click to expand...

I'm not from Michigan, but I do have a comment about this section of the law and this section of this comment.(as interpreted through the comments here)
==

I understand what you're saying about the compensation for loss of limb.
However, the point still remains that the people who are up-to-date in paying their insurance are paying into this fund. The people NOT paying into the fund are exactly the same people that are let off the hook by this fund paid for by the rest of the people.

It's a double-whammy for the people who buy insurance. They're on the hook for themselves, and for anyone who didn't buy insurance.
 
Two different responses in one post:

1. As to the uninsured motorist fund, I've always been fully insured. My understanding is that if I am in an accident with an uninsured motorist, I have to turn to the fund for reimbursement of non-medical expenses related to the loss of limb, e.g. that most policies will not pick up these expenses because the law presumes you sue the other side. Therefore, I am the one being punished because this yokol is driving around without insurance. I think this is stupid because I have much more than minimum coverage because someone who hits me is not going settle for policy limits with my job and Michigan's low mandatory policy limits. If I hit someone who bought his certificate from the "thegeneral.com" I'm stuck with those ridiculously low limits unless the guy happens to have enough assets to make it worth going after him personally. In state where most people are upside down on their mortgages, with high unemployment, and where retirement funds are protected from attachment, I'm probably hosed.

2. As to me being criticized for admitting that I am an attorney, I lose both ways. If I don't disclose it, you can say that it is unethical lurking. It may give me a little "cred" on certain issues, but I'm not here chasing cases. I joined the forum to try and answer a post where I knew the answer and where there was some flat out wrong information. Ironically, even though I posted my answer three times, the mod never left it through. I gave up and sent the poster a private post.

I know how much lawyers are loved. People have a love/hate relationship with us. My brother is a doctor so believe me I've heard every lawyer joke out there. I also flat out acknowledged that I wasn't a member of the GOP in a forum where this probably wasn't going to get me any favors. In sum, I ain't chasing cases or ambulances on this forum. I'm simply saying I know a little law.

Stu
 
Can't speak to the whole lost post thing, but having members on a forum contribute to the best of their ability and knowledge is something I we all can appreciate.

Atty Stu said:
...Therefore, I am the one being punished because this yokol is driving around without insurance.
Click to expand...

I'm not a fan of this idea that someone is being punished because they're not being rewarded/compensated.
The people being punished are the people forced into paying into the fund to cover actions that they aren't responsible for.
 
I have an idea. Why don't we start punishing the law breakers instead of the people that following the law. Seems like we are constantly making excuses for the law breakers and expecting the people that follow the law pay for it. Just my opinion.:pleasantry:
 
fuhr52 said:
I have an idea. Why don't we start punishing the law breakers instead of the people that following the law. Seems like we are constantly making excuses for the law breakers and expecting the people that follow the law pay for it. Just my opinion.:pleasantry:
Click to expand...

And that is the logic that every liberal refuses to acknowledge, be it gun law or as in this incidence other area.....
 
Maybe I'm a complete dumbas%^ ,but why do people always blame the Democrats when something they don't like pops up ? I seem to remember the state that Engler (republican)left Michigan in,then people blamed Granholm for it.Merlin couldn't of helped out. We're still recovering from him.Meanwhile he's getting paid millions for being a lobbyist,figuring ouy how to screw the little people and gettin g the Democrats blamed for it......I'm sorry for straying off the subject but other people brought up the subject several times.
 
G50AE said:
How about just doing away with compulsary inssurance coverage laws? Let the people decide what level of coverage, if any, they require. This would drive down the cost of insurance.
Click to expand...

True, but when you get blasted in a wreck by an uninsured motorist that is broke, who's going to pay for your new car?
 
Atty Stu said:
Two different responses in one post:

1. As to the uninsured motorist fund, I've always been fully insured. My understanding is that if I am in an accident with an uninsured motorist, I have to turn to the fund for reimbursement of non-medical expenses related to the loss of limb, e.g. that most policies will not pick up these expenses because the law presumes you sue the other side. Therefore, I am the one being punished because this yokol is driving around without insurance. I think this is stupid because I have much more than minimum coverage because someone who hits me is not going settle for policy limits with my job and Michigan's low mandatory policy limits. If I hit someone who bought his certificate from the "thegeneral.com" I'm stuck with those ridiculously low limits unless the guy happens to have enough assets to make it worth going after him personally. In state where most people are upside down on their mortgages, with high unemployment, and where retirement funds are protected from attachment, I'm probably hosed.

2. As to me being criticized for admitting that I am an attorney, I lose both ways. If I don't disclose it, you can say that it is unethical lurking. It may give me a little "cred" on certain issues, but I'm not here chasing cases. I joined the forum to try and answer a post where I knew the answer and where there was some flat out wrong information. Ironically, even though I posted my answer three times, the mod never left it through. I gave up and sent the poster a private post.

I know how much lawyers are loved. People have a love/hate relationship with us. My brother is a doctor so believe me I've heard every lawyer joke out there. I also flat out acknowledged that I wasn't a member of the GOP in a forum where this probably wasn't going to get me any favors. In sum, I ain't chasing cases or ambulances on this forum. I'm simply saying I know a little law.

Stu
Click to expand...

That's OK Stu, some of us are libertarian and some are straight up Constitutionalists. :smile: You don't have to be a member of the GOP. I even heard there are a few Democrats lurking in these here forums. :smile:
 
TomC51 said:
Who's this damn Democrat on this forum and why doesn't he identify himself ?
Click to expand...

???. If you're referring to me, I am as identified as anyone else on this forum. Stuart is my first name and I'm an attorney in Southfield. I don't identify my full name for the same reason that everyone else doesn't -- I don't want my email box overloaded with spam and flames. Additionally, people will use it as proof that I am an "ambulance chasing" attorney.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 82 (members: 0, guests: 82)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
49,543
Messages
611,261
Members
74,964
Latest member
sigsag1

Share this page

Back
Top