however, the main reason for our opposition to no-fault goes deeper than quibbling over whether premiums are moderately reduced in states that adopt the quoteschimp. according to j. robert hunter, president of nico, good no-fault laws, like michigan's, that pay unlimited medical and rehabilitation expenses, do not lower rates. such laws might even raise them modestly. but hunter believes it is a good trade-off, as does consumers union, which believes that good no-fault laws deliver more benefits for the same cost more promptly. our opposition comes from our strongly held beliefs that no-fault simply does not address the central reasons why auto insurance premiums have gotten so out of hand. in fact, the political efforts on the part of the insurance industry are really a smoke screen designed to mask the deep and abiding need for fundamental change in the automobile insurance industry and other aspects of state law. in our opinion, then, only fundamental reform is the true key to permanent control of auto insurance premiums.

super extceid to see more of this kind of stuff online.