and smell the exhaust from those moving trucks. Without reforms, by 2010, the state will have to create a state fund, since no private insurers will continue to waste their capital on a state where they are not welcomed and not wanted. I predict, by 2012:
= new state fund has 45% market share after only two years of operation…the estimated deficit for the first two years is hidden from the press by state officials but eventually the projected deficit figure of $2.5 billion is released as part of an open records request
= Liberty Mutual moves its headquarters to New Jersey, taking thousands of jobs out of the Commonwealth and into the dramatically improved New Jersey regulatory environment
= With the rousing cry of “Remember Massachusetts”, the Federal Government finally adopts an optional federal charter for insurers
The way that the current insurance stands anyone in MA can get insurance. They are not priced out by their credit score. Their rate is determined by factors that relate to their driving. It is their driving record determines the offset (as the SDIP factor) in the rate. The current MA rating system DOES protect the consumer from not having required insurance denied to them. If you pay your premium, you get coverage.
Pretty soon actuaries will say that the amount of television someone watches, if their divorced, have children out of wedlock or have a fatal illness relates to their risk as a driver! You can take this line of thinking anywhere. Who protects the rights of the individual more than MA when it comes to matters unrelated to auto insurance?
Bravo for the judge, who has told the insurance companies that neither they, nor an insurance commissioner and/or governor that favor the industry over the consumer, can defy the law. The CAR Plan, in existence since 1973, forces insurance companies to shoulder and acept their responsibilities to the public. They made significant profits for many years, inducing them to find a way to compete even though the State Rating Bureau set prices. The companies will always and forever complain that they’re “not making any money” which translated really means that the greedy and avaricious management isn’t happy with the amount of PROFITS they’re making, so look for more pressure, and more companies to threaten or even, for the short term leave the state until they get the underwriting and pricing freedoms (i.e., no regulation) they want. Comment from the “author” of the CAR Plan.
Bravos also to “Consumer” and to “Jay” since they seem to be really aware of what’s going on in the marketplace, and who the driving forces are behind the scheme to replace the CAR Plan with an assigned risk plan mechanism. One question for ‘weewilliewinkie” – which insurance company do you work for?
If the insurance companies truly believed in the free market, they would demand the elimination of the auto insurance mandate. Instead, they want to sock it to poor people with jacked-up insurance rates based on their credit scores and occupational titles.
Either you believe in the “invisible hand,” or you do not. Don’t insist on a free market for setting rates while arguing that individual mandates for auto and health insurance are good social policy.
and smell the exhaust from those moving trucks. Without reforms, by 2010, the state will have to create a state fund, since no private insurers will continue to waste their capital on a state where they are not welcomed and not wanted. I predict, by 2012:
= new state fund has 45% market share after only two years of operation…the estimated deficit for the first two years is hidden from the press by state officials but eventually the projected deficit figure of $2.5 billion is released as part of an open records request
= Liberty Mutual moves its headquarters to New Jersey, taking thousands of jobs out of the Commonwealth and into the dramatically improved New Jersey regulatory environment
= With the rousing cry of “Remember Massachusetts”, the Federal Government finally adopts an optional federal charter for insurers
The way that the current insurance stands anyone in MA can get insurance. They are not priced out by their credit score. Their rate is determined by factors that relate to their driving. It is their driving record determines the offset (as the SDIP factor) in the rate. The current MA rating system DOES protect the consumer from not having required insurance denied to them. If you pay your premium, you get coverage.
Pretty soon actuaries will say that the amount of television someone watches, if their divorced, have children out of wedlock or have a fatal illness relates to their risk as a driver! You can take this line of thinking anywhere. Who protects the rights of the individual more than MA when it comes to matters unrelated to auto insurance?
Bravo for the judge, who has told the insurance companies that neither they, nor an insurance commissioner and/or governor that favor the industry over the consumer, can defy the law. The CAR Plan, in existence since 1973, forces insurance companies to shoulder and acept their responsibilities to the public. They made significant profits for many years, inducing them to find a way to compete even though the State Rating Bureau set prices. The companies will always and forever complain that they’re “not making any money” which translated really means that the greedy and avaricious management isn’t happy with the amount of PROFITS they’re making, so look for more pressure, and more companies to threaten or even, for the short term leave the state until they get the underwriting and pricing freedoms (i.e., no regulation) they want. Comment from the “author” of the CAR Plan.
Bravos also to “Consumer” and to “Jay” since they seem to be really aware of what’s going on in the marketplace, and who the driving forces are behind the scheme to replace the CAR Plan with an assigned risk plan mechanism. One question for ‘weewilliewinkie” – which insurance company do you work for?
Score one for the Commonwealth of Commerce Insurance co.
If the insurance companies truly believed in the free market, they would demand the elimination of the auto insurance mandate. Instead, they want to sock it to poor people with jacked-up insurance rates based on their credit scores and occupational titles.
Either you believe in the “invisible hand,” or you do not. Don’t insist on a free market for setting rates while arguing that individual mandates for auto and health insurance are good social policy.