My Personal Finance Blog

You probably know that all US states have different minimum coverage amounts that are required to be carried within the driver’s insurance policies. And depending on where your car is registered you will have to meet these requirements. What happens if your policy has coverage amounts lower than the required minimum? That depends on the state you drive in. But usually, in case of an accident if the authorities learn that you have coverage below the minimum amount you can face a penalty or even taken into custody. So, in order to avoid that, here are the minimum requirements of coverage state by state:

Alaska 50/100/25
Alabama 20/40/10

Arkansas 25/50/15
Arizona 15/30/10
California 15/30/5
Colorado 25/50/15
Connecticut 20/40/10
Delaware 15/30/5
Florida 10/20/10
Georgia 15/30/10
Hawaii 20/40/10

Idaho 20/50/15
Illinois 20/40/15
Indiana 25/50/10
Iowa 20/40/15
Kansas 25/50/10
Kentucky 25/50/10
Louisiana 10/20/10
Maine 50/100/25
Maryland 20/40/10

Massachusetts 20/40/5
Michigan 20/40/10
Minnesota 30/60/10
Mississippi 25/50/25
Missouri 25/50/10
Montana 25/50/10
Nebraska 25/50/25
New Hampshire 25/50/25
New Jersey 15/30/5

New Mexico 25/50/10
Nevada 15/30/10
New York 25/50/10
North Carolina 30/60/25
North Dakota 25/50/25
Ohio 12.5/25/7.5
Oklahoma 10/20/10
Oregon 25/50/10
Pennsylvania 15/30/5

Rhode Island 25/50/25
South Carolina 15/30/10
South Dakota 25/50/25
Tennessee 25/50/10
Texas 20/40/15
Utah 25/65/15
Virginia 25/50/20
Vermont 25/50/10
Washington 25/50/10

Wisconsin 25/50/10
West Virginia 20/40/10
Wyoming 25/50/20

The numbers refer to bodily injury and damage liability limits to be carried by the car insurance policy. The first number is the limit of injury liability per person. The second number is the injury liability limit per accident. And the third number refers to damage liability amount. And if the property damage limit is pretty evident, needed to pay for any damage to property or infrastructure delivered by your vehicle during the accident, the first two limits need a more detailed explanation. Let’s take an example from Alaska – 50/100. The first number means that a person injured in the accident that gets covered can receive up to $50,000. The second number refers to the total injury car insurance coverage per single accident. If there are two persons in the car who sustained damage they will receive up to $50,000 each (a total of $100,000). But if there are 3 or 4 persons, the $100,000 will be distributed amongst them, making individual coverage limits lower. In case all the persons require maximum per capita coverage of $50,000 the first who file for it will get it, and the other ones will be covered by the policy of the car owner who was at fault during the accident.

The world of politics is never supposed to make any real sense. After all, once you pit people’s cherished beliefs against each other, passions are roused and the arguments soon become bitter. It would be better if everyone was just allowed to do what they wanted. But, when it comes to organising medical care for the population, it takes a government to put the right kind of infrastructure in place. People have to be trained as care givers. This takes years and costs a small fortune. Hospitals and clinics have to be built. And then we come to all the support staff who drive the ambulances, keep the places clean and keep the accounts. Ah, yes, the money. All of this work over years has to be paid for. So the $64,000 question is who should foot the bill? It’s at this point that emotions get in the way of common sense.

Talk to one side of the argument and they will tell you people who want access to medical care should carry private insurance. Talk to the other side and they will tell you the state should pay for the service out of the tax revenue. It’s never really clear why people disagree. Only people who are in work pay tax. Only people who earn can afford to pay the premiums on insurance. It’s the same money. The only difference is the way it’s collected – one as tax and the other as premiums paid to an insurance company. But wait! There is a difference! If the state collects in the money, it can use it more efficiently because, unlike the insurance industry, it does not intend to make a profit. So the only reason to support the current system is to allow the insurance industry to continue making an ever larger profit.

As the Senate is currently set up, forty-one senators can stop any reform. That’s forty Republicans plus one other. Yet when you look at the number of people these Republican senators represent, it’s only 36% of the US population. This is somewhat unfair. The party with the majority of representatives was voted in by 64% of the population. The Democratic platform could not have been more clear. It was to be reform of healthcare provision. Yet when you look at the media (which is controlled by big business), all you see reported is the opposition to reform. The “tea party” movement captures all the headlines. But in all this, there is one really big irony that gets very little coverage.

The Republican senators may only represent 36% of the population, but they represent nearly 50% of the children without any health insurance and 42% of the adult population with no insurance. Despite the fact that half the uninsured children in the US are represented by the Republicans, their opposition to any reform that would give the children coverage could not be more aggressive. If we assume the outcome of the reform would be cheap health insurance for almost all US citizens, the Republicans are against it. Their policy is to keep the profits rolling in for the health insurance industry and, if the majority of the people who live in their states have no insurance, that’s just their bad luck. The US is genuinely a strange place. Despite the recession, it’s one of the richest countries in the world yet it has a political party determined to prevent its citizens from enjoying cheap health insurance. Sadly this party with the minority of votes in the Senate could get their way.