Some time ago, the Supreme People's Court solicited opinions from all walks of life on the Interpretation of Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in the Trial of Road Traffic Accident Damage Compensation Cases (Draft for Comment). The opinion draft requires compulsory insurance to be liable for traffic accident victims caused by vicious faults of the insured, such as drunk driving and intentional behavior, which has aroused widespread concern in the industry and the public. A few days ago, the Supreme Court published the Interpretation of Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in the Trial of Road Traffic Accident Compensation Cases (Draft for Comment) for public consultation, in order to revise relevant norms and legal provisions in the future. Among them, Article 17 proposes that drivers who fail to obtain a driver's license, drunk driving, drug driving and traffic accidents intentionally caused by the insured should be compensated within the underwriting limit. That is to say, Article 9 of the original compulsory insurance clause will not exclude driving without a license, drunk driving and intentional acts of the insured. In addition to paying medical expenses in advance, insurance companies should also pay compensation including death, disability, medical treatment and financial losses. After the Supreme Court put forward this opinion, it caused extensive discussion from all walks of life, with both positive and negative comments on the Internet, and the media relayed the views of people in the industry, which was also considered to be mixed. Supporters think it is helpful to social security, and there is still a proviso in this opinion. Insurance companies can claim compensation from the insured after paying compensation to make up for the loss of additional claims. Opponents are worried about encouraging crime or increasing the premium for compulsory insurance. From this confrontation, the society hopes to strengthen the scope of compulsory insurance protection, but is worried about its side effects. The author believes that to solve this problem, we should not only start from comparing the advantages and disadvantages, but also explore the systematic influence of the system to get a complete answer. Therefore, the following questions need to be answered first: First, will the implementation of the Opinion Draft increase the contradiction of loss risk? Obviously, drunk driving, drug driving and driving without a license will obviously increase the possibility of accidents. Even if the insured does not intentionally act, increasing the probability of accidents belongs to moral hazard, which violates the duty of a good manager in the principle of utmost good faith. Many opponents also believe that the compensation for compulsory insurance can reduce the responsibility of the perpetrators, especially in small accidents, which makes it easier to help the perpetrators pay compensation, thus reducing the willingness to abide by the law and increasing the risks of society and insurance companies. For this concern, the opinion draft gave a proviso. For these accidents, insurance companies can claim compensation from the perpetrators, and the perpetrators may also face criminal punishment. Therefore, for the driver, there is no positive effect to induce him to deliberately carry out the above operations. Therefore, the increase of claim probability can be controlled and will not cause an accelerated increase when it is included in the new claim scope. Second, will the implementation of the Opinion Draft increase social costs? Including these behaviors with high moral hazard, even if there is a proviso of recovery afterwards, the actual operation will inevitably lead to high recovery costs. The perpetrators of large-scale accidents often evade recovery by transferring property, and the small-scale perpetrators may not readily return the claims. Insurance companies are bound to need to invest extra manpower to recover debts and deposit related losses, which will increase the operating cost of compulsory insurance, but this cost will be borne by other car users. However, even if the compulsory insurance is not borne, the cost will still exist. If it is borne by the economically disadvantaged victims, it will increase the harm caused by traffic accidents. Moreover, this kind of accident is likely to happen to anyone, which is fair to all passers-by, and car users may also be beneficiaries. Third, will the implementation of the Opinion Draft encourage crime? In addition to the above-mentioned unfairness that may increase business risks and cost sharing, opponents are also worried that this policy will conflict with social morality. Drunk driving, drug abuse and the insured intentionally causing traffic accidents are all obvious illegal acts, and the government's policy insurance can actually provide insurance to share the responsibility for it, even if it can be recovered afterwards, but the effect is questionable. Regarding this doubt, we should understand that the proposal of the Opinion Draft is mainly to protect the victims and prevent the perpetrators from evading compensation. Moreover, the perpetrators will not reduce their civil and criminal responsibilities, so this Opinion Draft is still in line with the principles of social fairness and justice. From the above discussion, it can be seen that opening up claims for drunk driving, drunken driving, driving without a license and intentional behavior will indeed increase the compensation cost of compulsory insurance, but it will not encourage crime, nor will it cause uncontrollable loss probability or violate social justice. The contradiction is whether the extra cost should be borne by other kind car users. In this regard, in addition to compulsory insurance, another mechanism worthy of our attention is the establishment of the victims' compensation fund (hereinafter referred to as the "compensation fund"). This system has been practiced in advanced countries for many years and has received good results. It can provide basic assistance to victims who are not compensated in traffic accidents or all accidents. There are also many provinces and cities in China to organize and try out, and give minimum compensation as help to the victims who can't get compulsory insurance and compensation from the perpetrators. The main financial source of the compensation fund also depends on the government's allocation, which can also be said to be a mechanism shared by the whole society. Together with the compulsory insurance, it can be regarded as the work of undertaking economic assistance for victims of drunk driving, drug driving, driving without a license and intentional behavior. However, with the business model as the background, the operational efficiency of compulsory insurance is higher than that of compensation fund. From the perspective of social resources, this task is entrusted to compulsory insurance, which can save manpower and operating costs. Some operators also said that the scope of claims proposed in the "Opinion Draft" should not cause a sharp increase in the claims of insurance companies, mainly because those violations may touch criminal responsibility, and the perpetrators mostly hope to settle privately and avoid being prosecuted. Although there are not many people who maliciously evade responsibility, the new cost may not be large, and there is no specific profit target for compulsory insurance, but its cost must be reflected in the current rate reform to maintain the goal of balance of payments, so as to ensure the long-term operation and service quality of compulsory insurance. In operation, because insurance companies have the right to claim compensation, they must actively participate in the reconciliation or negotiation process like other commercial auto insurance, and establish a good recovery mechanism to avoid damage to their rights and interests. For vulnerable victims, they should also take the initiative to assist in claims settlement, and give full play to the protective function of compulsory insurance and the professional ethics of the insurance industry. Compulsory insurance is a policy insurance, and it is hoped that the business model will be used to avoid the waste of social resources by using the self-financing mechanism. However, commercial insurance also has the basic principle of invulnerability, otherwise the expected efficiency cannot be achieved. From the foregoing discussion, we can also know that under the condition of proviso, it will not harm this mechanism to include drunk driving, poisonous driving, driving without a license and the driver's intentional behavior into the general coverage. Therefore, all people can enjoy higher protection because of this Opinion Draft. As for the cost passed on to car users, car users who are also protected should be considerate if the premium will not increase significantly. In addition, the coverage of compulsory insurance is not 1%, and China should also actively develop compensation funds. * * * as a rescue method for traffic accidents, the former gives play to its efficiency advantage and the latter expands its coverage. The two complement each other and complement each other, which can enhance social security. Wise choice suggests that compulsory insurance is a kind of compulsory insurance in the form of laws and regulations to safeguard the public interests, which is based on the national public policy. Its main purpose is to ensure that the victims of road traffic accidents can get basic protection and has the attribute of social welfare.