I am under the impression that the idea with this is to allow insurance companies to offer policies where the individuals agree to put mileage monitoring devices in their cars in exchange for a more favorable terms and/or rates?
Where does it say this is supposed to be a government program? The commish just wants to study the feasability of letting companies sell policies that use these devices. Seems a noble endeavor to me, however lots of pitfalls to be overcome first.
It will still be private insurance sold though existing distribution channels and existing companies.
There is no formal proposal yet. But I think the general idea is to allow the option of verified mileage. That would not necessarily mean electronic device. It could involve an odometer reading by producer or smog shop at the end of the policy term.
But the proposal is not pay at the pump. It is verified mileage – not pay at the pump.
Charging for auto insurance on a per mile basis may sound simple but it is not equitable. Driving 100 miles a week in NYC traffic is much more likely to lead to a loss than driving 100 miles a week in upstate NY where I live. The rating would also have to reflect where someone actually drives and the individual’s driving and accident experience if it is to be fair.
Prediction: Here comes the wave of so-called “consumer advocates” who will say that such programs are an invasion of privacy and that all drivers should be given the same rates as those who drive the fewest number of miles.
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, they will be saying that insurance companies are required to base rates on annual miles driven but they will be opposed to all attempts to objectively quantify how many miles are actually driven. Most amazingly, they will say this with a straight face and in all earnest.
In reality, it makes all the sense in the world for a company to give preferential rates to those who take the guesswork out of determining annual miles. Otherwise rates MUST reflect the fact that many consumers (and far too many agents/brokers) are playing the current ‘honor’ system by lowballing annual miles driven.
Might as well have an insuarance tax at the gasoline pumps and buy insurance that way with the state at the helm of the auto insuarance industries so that consummers would be well protected from insurance companies and the state can have its way with all consummers. Who needs capitalism with states protecting the consummers at will!
California proposed “pay at the pump” several years ago, but thankfully it died before they could implement. As to paying based on where you live, zip code cannot be a rating factor in California. So someone living in Los Angeles pays the same as someone living in a rural area. Lets hope this hair brained scheme for pay as you go dies too. What a nightmare to administer that one!!
The highest auto insurance premiums seem to be from ‘pay at the pump’ states. You remember pay at the pump? Thats where the good drivers pay more for liability insurance ‘at the pump’ so the previously uninsured will finally ‘man up’ and get insurance (at the pump). This is the only way to get the unlicensed, uninsured, undocumented drivers in California to participate in the social and legal contract that is auto insurance.
If it’s going to work, the state had better keep track of the loss costs in each city… Oh, but that wouldn’t be fair. People that are stupid enough to live in a high rent, earthquake, mudslide and fire prone district, shouldn’t ever be forced to pay your fair share for insurance. Just like the energy and water those socialist societies steal from the hard-working , right-thinking Central-California farmers and citizens.
The way it works, I think, because we don’t have it in my state, is you pay for liability and med pay (maybe) at the pump.
That means you pay another .50 cents per gallon to the state, and if you are at fault in an accident the state pays the claim for section 2. If you want comp or collision you buy that separately for your own vehicle, as you see fit. Thats how they do it in British Columbia. And that takes commission dollars from an agency and gives it to the state. Also, now I pay a low rate for my liability because I don’t have any accidents on my record. Undoubtably I will pay more under ‘pay at the pump’ because I now pay for me and my good driving record, and I pay for Sammy the socialist who 1) won’t buy it unless you hold a gun to his head and 2) Sammy is a lousy driver with a history of accidents. No wonder Sammy refuses to buy liability insurance himself – with his driving record it WOULD COST A TON. But now I get to share his pain.
Pay as you go sounds like it could easily morph into pay at the pump. Advocates of governmental socialist auto insurance (pay at the pump) have learned to avoid the term ‘pay at the pump’ because too many people now know that the idea puts more cost on the good drivers, and less cost than it should on the not so good drivers. Lets see, on my book of business, I probably derive at least 30% of my auto insurance income from liability and med pay. I guess I could terminate one of my full time employees, along with their complete benefit package (life, health, dis, retirement plan) so the state could now provide it. What kind of retards think the government can do it cheaper, better than private enterprise? Why, the ones we elect and pay with our tax dollars, thats who!
What a great way to social engineer us into smaller cars, eh? Smaller cars, less gas, lower insurance cost. Would it surprise you to find out that is exactly how the socialists who make up government think? Gorebal warming and all.
This is “Gassed Up” again; my sarcasm is that socialism is not equal it is enslavement to the powers that be. Consumer protection and equalitarianism are buzz words for economic slavery and the entitelment mentality is the end product of our social engineering. I liken it to the movie “Soilant Green”.
To successfully implement an insurance rating program that is historic rather than prospective in how it ultimately rates and bills the insurance exposure. Rating and collecting premium on the front end of a policy transaction is much less problematic than doing the same on the back end. Unless there is a real and enforced penalty for consumers walking away from paying what turns out to be a higher rated exposure, pay as you go will open the door to a sea of earned but uncollected premiums.
Very true Steve. I imagine there will be a fair amount of resistance because people will be unaccustomed to auditable auto policies. One company we have, Mercury, began going after uncollected but earned premiums a while back with some success.
Personally, I think that while great in theory, implementation will be another matter altogether. Even if they can stong arm the delinquent insureds in collections, the lapse ratio among the higher mileage drivers will be substantial not to mention the ill will that will be created.
Legislators absolutely amaze me how clueless they are. The current system is fine and this stupid idea will simply force people to lie about their mileage or create more bureacracy. There is always some nitwit who wants to reinvent the wheel by making it square – leave the system alone stupid
YEH, LARRY. PASS A LAW THAT ALL WHEELS MUST BE SQUARE, BUT DON’T DO IT UNTIL YOU’VE STARTED A BUSINESS THAT MAKES SQUARE WHEELS. P.S.—PUT THE BUSINESS IN SOMEONE ELSE’S NAME, OR SOMEONE WILL SHOUT CONFLICT OF INTEREST!
I am under the impression that the idea with this is to allow insurance companies to offer policies where the individuals agree to put mileage monitoring devices in their cars in exchange for a more favorable terms and/or rates?
Where does it say this is supposed to be a government program? The commish just wants to study the feasability of letting companies sell policies that use these devices. Seems a noble endeavor to me, however lots of pitfalls to be overcome first.
It will still be private insurance sold though existing distribution channels and existing companies.
Believe me, Poizner is ANYTHING but a socialist.
There is no formal proposal yet. But I think the general idea is to allow the option of verified mileage. That would not necessarily mean electronic device. It could involve an odometer reading by producer or smog shop at the end of the policy term.
But the proposal is not pay at the pump. It is verified mileage – not pay at the pump.
Charging for auto insurance on a per mile basis may sound simple but it is not equitable. Driving 100 miles a week in NYC traffic is much more likely to lead to a loss than driving 100 miles a week in upstate NY where I live. The rating would also have to reflect where someone actually drives and the individual’s driving and accident experience if it is to be fair.
Prediction: Here comes the wave of so-called “consumer advocates” who will say that such programs are an invasion of privacy and that all drivers should be given the same rates as those who drive the fewest number of miles.
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, they will be saying that insurance companies are required to base rates on annual miles driven but they will be opposed to all attempts to objectively quantify how many miles are actually driven. Most amazingly, they will say this with a straight face and in all earnest.
In reality, it makes all the sense in the world for a company to give preferential rates to those who take the guesswork out of determining annual miles. Otherwise rates MUST reflect the fact that many consumers (and far too many agents/brokers) are playing the current ‘honor’ system by lowballing annual miles driven.
If anyone has a low amount of miles annually, they will buy this product.
Anyone with a larger amount of miles will NOT buy it.
In the short term it will lead to adverse selection.
In the longer term, the mileage people will pay higher prices due to additional (difficult) audit purposes.
Might as well have an insuarance tax at the gasoline pumps and buy insurance that way with the state at the helm of the auto insuarance industries so that consummers would be well protected from insurance companies and the state can have its way with all consummers. Who needs capitalism with states protecting the consummers at will!
California proposed “pay at the pump” several years ago, but thankfully it died before they could implement. As to paying based on where you live, zip code cannot be a rating factor in California. So someone living in Los Angeles pays the same as someone living in a rural area. Lets hope this hair brained scheme for pay as you go dies too. What a nightmare to administer that one!!
The highest auto insurance premiums seem to be from ‘pay at the pump’ states. You remember pay at the pump? Thats where the good drivers pay more for liability insurance ‘at the pump’ so the previously uninsured will finally ‘man up’ and get insurance (at the pump). This is the only way to get the unlicensed, uninsured, undocumented drivers in California to participate in the social and legal contract that is auto insurance.
SO—–WHEN YOU GET GAS, YOU WOULD SHOW YOUR INSURANCE ID CARD SO THEY WOULDN’T ADD THE STATE INSURANCE TO THE GAS BILL?
If it’s going to work, the state had better keep track of the loss costs in each city… Oh, but that wouldn’t be fair. People that are stupid enough to live in a high rent, earthquake, mudslide and fire prone district, shouldn’t ever be forced to pay your fair share for insurance. Just like the energy and water those socialist societies steal from the hard-working , right-thinking Central-California farmers and citizens.
The way it works, I think, because we don’t have it in my state, is you pay for liability and med pay (maybe) at the pump.
That means you pay another .50 cents per gallon to the state, and if you are at fault in an accident the state pays the claim for section 2. If you want comp or collision you buy that separately for your own vehicle, as you see fit. Thats how they do it in British Columbia. And that takes commission dollars from an agency and gives it to the state. Also, now I pay a low rate for my liability because I don’t have any accidents on my record. Undoubtably I will pay more under ‘pay at the pump’ because I now pay for me and my good driving record, and I pay for Sammy the socialist who 1) won’t buy it unless you hold a gun to his head and 2) Sammy is a lousy driver with a history of accidents. No wonder Sammy refuses to buy liability insurance himself – with his driving record it WOULD COST A TON. But now I get to share his pain.
Pay as you go sounds like it could easily morph into pay at the pump. Advocates of governmental socialist auto insurance (pay at the pump) have learned to avoid the term ‘pay at the pump’ because too many people now know that the idea puts more cost on the good drivers, and less cost than it should on the not so good drivers. Lets see, on my book of business, I probably derive at least 30% of my auto insurance income from liability and med pay. I guess I could terminate one of my full time employees, along with their complete benefit package (life, health, dis, retirement plan) so the state could now provide it. What kind of retards think the government can do it cheaper, better than private enterprise? Why, the ones we elect and pay with our tax dollars, thats who!
What a great way to social engineer us into smaller cars, eh? Smaller cars, less gas, lower insurance cost. Would it surprise you to find out that is exactly how the socialists who make up government think? Gorebal warming and all.
This is “Gassed Up” again; my sarcasm is that socialism is not equal it is enslavement to the powers that be. Consumer protection and equalitarianism are buzz words for economic slavery and the entitelment mentality is the end product of our social engineering. I liken it to the movie “Soilant Green”.
To successfully implement an insurance rating program that is historic rather than prospective in how it ultimately rates and bills the insurance exposure. Rating and collecting premium on the front end of a policy transaction is much less problematic than doing the same on the back end. Unless there is a real and enforced penalty for consumers walking away from paying what turns out to be a higher rated exposure, pay as you go will open the door to a sea of earned but uncollected premiums.
Very true Steve. I imagine there will be a fair amount of resistance because people will be unaccustomed to auditable auto policies. One company we have, Mercury, began going after uncollected but earned premiums a while back with some success.
Personally, I think that while great in theory, implementation will be another matter altogether. Even if they can stong arm the delinquent insureds in collections, the lapse ratio among the higher mileage drivers will be substantial not to mention the ill will that will be created.
Dumb, and would be almost impossible to regulate without increasing insurance costs just to implement.
Legislators absolutely amaze me how clueless they are. The current system is fine and this stupid idea will simply force people to lie about their mileage or create more bureacracy. There is always some nitwit who wants to reinvent the wheel by making it square – leave the system alone stupid
YEH, LARRY. PASS A LAW THAT ALL WHEELS MUST BE SQUARE, BUT DON’T DO IT UNTIL YOU’VE STARTED A BUSINESS THAT MAKES SQUARE WHEELS. P.S.—PUT THE BUSINESS IN SOMEONE ELSE’S NAME, OR SOMEONE WILL SHOUT CONFLICT OF INTEREST!
Have another quaalude. Maybe then you will make sense. Fool
I’M NOT A DRUGGEE—YOU NEED TO THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX—I WAS JUST FUNNIN YOU!