I just received my 6 month premium and it went up $100 and I already had 100,000 - 300,000 -
100,000 - 10,000. Maybe Doyle can work with Obama on a national car insurance reform plan.

I did some internet research on these minimums and they are actually higher than recommended by a columnist in the Wall Street Journal. Also, those who have not been able to afford the insurance in the past may be in for a shocker. A friend of mine has gone without coverage for the past year or so (while unemployed), has not had a ticket in more than five years and has never been charged in an accident. She has been getting quotes and is purchasing new insurance this week. She drives a 2005 mini-van and has been receiving quotes between $1,100 and $1,250 for one year coverage that includes these minimums and also comprehensive coverage. These numbers seem rather high to me, but she has been checking with agents tied to one insurance company, independent agents who offer policies from multiple companies and on-line plans which pay lower commissions to the policy writer. Are these quotes so high because of her gap in coverage?

For starters, I can only say what my experience is with this issue. When meeting with my agent before this issue was even being discussed in public, he advised me to go with these numbers vs. the current minimum. I asked if he had ever seen a case where the current minimums were not enough. He told me it was not that uncommon. I know insurance agents need to sell to make money, but my premiums are not that high. I think full coverage on our primary vehicle is less than $50 a month. I do not think that this is that bad compared to paying $100 a month when I was a 16 year old with bare bones liability. I agree with cookiedough. If everyone HAS to have insurance, wouldn't it make the uninsured and underinsured claims decrease. I guess one can look at it from both sides. All I can say is that I have at least this coverage on all of our families vehicles, and the rates do not seem that much different. My $.02.

I have that coverage already. I have only not had insurance for 1 year of my driving record, but I was never told about car insurance. My mother was always to poor to afford it. I have since then convinced my mother that she needs to have insurance and she did get it. I have hit 2 raccoons that almost totaled my car out and then my car was hit while legally parked and it was totaled and the lady took off. They found her and thankfully she had insurance, otherwise I would have footed the bill. I will never drive without insurance ever again. Some things need to be sacrificed to keep it, but I'd rather not get screwed for not having it. People need to take out some of the un-necessary things and re-think what is really important. I would hate to have to pay for someone's medical bills for the rest of my life because I a)either didn't have enough coverage or b)didn't have any coverage at all.

You have to wonder why the arguement for Public Option & health care for all, the arguement is; rates will go down because everyone is covered yet this same principal doesnt seem to apply to auto insurance. I dont get it. Could it be that Doyle, Sheridan, Robson etc. are pushing Health care to appease the lower income families to "buy votes" because on the surface it appears they are fighting for their "rights - while on the other hand, requiring Auto Insurance would actually appear to "cost them votes" from this same group. Nice double standard.

Cookie, here's the deal.
Generally speaking uninsured motorists fall into two categories. The first group are low income who feel that they can not afford insurance yet have to drive. Mandating insurance with higher limits and premiums isn't going to make it anymore affordable for this group. They will drive without it.
The second group are high risk drivers. Their driving habits are poor and consequently their insurance is very expensive. So they drive without it. Forcing insurance companies to insure this group is a double edged sword because the insurance company can't charge a rate adequate to compensate them for the risk they take by insuring this class. It would be unaffordable. Consequently premiums for this group will have to subsidized by other policyholders who will pay higher rates.
Lastly don't blame this one on the insurance companies. As a group they don't favor mandatory insurance. This is the work of the trial attorney's lobby. I'll let you speculate on their motivation.

Bye the way, people driving uninsured once the law takes effect should, if caught, lose their drivers license priviledges for 1 year or until proof of insurance is provided and made to pay the registration fee all over again. Also, once insurance is cancelled, the insurance companies should be required, or fined if not done so, to contact the state dept. of transportation immediately on that negligent driver who cancelled car insurance and then the DOT needs to be held accountable to write/call that uninsured person up and request within 30 days proof of insurance or his/her license will be revoked/suspended for another 1 year of operating priviledges. The law on mandatory insurance needs to be enforced by insurance companies, DOT, police, and everyone involved.

Agree, bye-bye Mr. Doyle - time to take out the trash. Back on subject, HOW CAN MY RATES INCREASE IF I CARRY OVER THE LIMITS ALREADY ON INSURANCE WHEN IN FACT MORE DRIVERS ARE FORCED TO CARRY INSURANCE SOON WHILE DRIVING WHICH IN TURN SHOULD LOWER EVERYONE'S PREMIUMS SINCE MORE MONEY IS BEING PAID TO THE INSURANCE COMPANIES ONCE WI DRIVERS ARE FORCED TO CARRY INSURANCE LIKE THEY SHOULD HAVE 20 YEARS AGO? Can anybody explain WHY IS MAKING EVERYONE CARRY INSURANCE GOING TO INCREASE MY RATES? Does NOT make one bit of sense to me. Please explain? I don't get it one bit. My rates just went up over 8% with Allstate statewide no matter if you have been in an accident or not and don't foresee them going up anytime soon. If more money is paid to insurance companies in WI, the rates, if anything, should be going down next year. Agree?

Unintended consequences of government interference here is more people will simply go uninsured entirely. Causing more trouble for law abiding citizens. Government is the problem, not the solution.

So the responsible people who will still buy insurance get hit with higher premiums. Meanwhile, I can see this forcing more people to drive without insurance. Hit us again with higher uninsured driver rates. Some of the people are just irresponsible, but I suspect that many simply have no choice. They have to drive to work to put food on the table and they can't afford to buy insurance and eat too. It is simply a matter of survival for some people. It does not make it right, but survival will always prevail over right and wrong.

Yes - these insurance rate increases are just the tip of the iceberg for Wisconsin residents. The Governor & the Democrat's in our Wisconsin legislature have been patting themselves on the back since July for all the wonderful things they did in the new state budget - and all without increasing our income taxes. What they won't admit is that they added about $2billion in new state revenue schemes - hospital taxes, trash disposal/landfill fee increase, drivers license increases, license plate increases, tobacco tax increases, etc, etc. These increased "user fees" affect all of us daily and take an even bigger bite by the state of Wisconsin out of our disposable income. That includes raising the auto insurance limits, thereby raising our insurance rates in Wisconsin. Thank you very much Mr. Governor, and the same to your your pals in the Wisconsin legislature. I had no idea what I was going to do with all my extra money. As for me, I'm very happy our current Governor has announcced he will not seek re-election. I think he knows it is time for him to leave!