I used to live in WI and I did have car insurance. Most people did.
Yes, it is a fairly common sense thing to do if one doesn't have a cash pool significantly larger than standard liability coverage, I was merely pointing out it wasn't mandatory.
There was an additional option when you got insurance to insure you against accidents with people who were uninsured or under-insured. Basically, the insurance company will pay the bills no matter what and sue the un-insured idiot that ran into you if they can.
That's not unique to Wisconsin
I believe it is the norm even.It's called uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage
Some states (fewer than half if memory serves) take a "no fault" approach. They require insureds to purchase personal injury coverage that will pay for that insured's medical treatment and possibly compensate for time missed at work. But the limits are usually pretty low, only sufficient to cover "typical" losses. Other states have an optional coverage to pay medical expenses for the insured individual regardless of who is at fault.
If you are from Betelgeuse, please have one of your Earth friends read what I've written before you respond. Or try concentrating harder.
"The trophy problem has become extreme."
"The trophy problem has become extreme."
US Court of Appeals - ObamaCare is Unconstitutional! 
- 12/08/2011 09:04:30 PM
725 Views
- 12/08/2011 09:04:30 PM
725 Views
Does America have mandatory car insurance?
- 12/08/2011 09:42:17 PM
582 Views
It's determined by the state, but in most states, yes.
- 12/08/2011 10:05:39 PM
484 Views
it isn't the same but even it was it wouldn't matter because of the tenth amendment
- 12/08/2011 11:42:59 PM
446 Views
Sort of a meaningless decision either way
- 12/08/2011 10:54:00 PM
326 Views
Kennedy has a clear record of restricting the use of the commerce clause argument....
- 13/08/2011 12:08:43 AM
328 Views
Re: Kennedy has a clear record of restricting the use of the commerce clause argument....
- 13/08/2011 12:10:33 AM
326 Views