Harvey wants to protect the new previously uninsured folks? Well here’s a thought…tell them to KEEP the insurance inforce and earn the persistency discount themselves just like everyone else did and stop your whining!
Whats the beef? How can anyone say this is biased against those who do not carry Auto Ins.– Its the law to have Auto coverage if you have a car. Too many Californians skirt the law by purchasing coverage to register the vehicle & then let it lapse, hoping they are not stopped & asked for proof. I have heard of cases where Law enforcement officers do not even ask for proof ofIns. when they do a traffic stop & cite someone for a violation.
No surprise being California, but why is the State dictating all of the pricing rules here?????
I also agree that if you’ve gone uninsured and cheated the system for years you ought to be penalized when you finally get legal. After all, you’ve probably caused accidents and it’s about time you start paying for it. It’s called the LAW!
so, here’s another way for folks to find a loophole. how many folks will say i have insurance and send in a so-called valid proof, only to have cancelled that policy a few months prior to starting the new insurance? every state requires insurance but how many just get it and cancel it just after they have license reinstated or re-registered the vehicle. it would probably pass because the folks in california want to save money, it’s a matter of those that violate the law. so is the state going to mandate itself to tell the next insurance, they are in a lapse of insurance? NOT! because it would cost them more money and time.
That you would want to penalize law abiding consumers from financially benefiting from a history of continuous coverage tells me how out of touch you are. Nothing will spur lower overall rates in the state more than increased competition by companies for the majority of California drivers. Currently uninsured drivers can either buy an underpriced policy in the state’s low cost auto program, or they can buy regular coverage, keep it in force for six months and benefit from having established their own continuous history.
The data is pretty strong for most carriers and across the country that having prior insurance is an indicator of risk (I do often question the previous BI limits issue). Leave it to CA to toss out anything that is fact or data oriented. Like many other proposals, this comes under the “it’s not my fault” logic.
As long as we are ignoring sound underwriting and pricing, why not just write an initiative that says insurance will only cost $1? Would Harvey go for that?
It would be fair… to everyone except the insurance company!
Because people, the likes of Obama, are promoting irresponsbility and dependence on government, and governments “duty to look out for them”. A certain group of Americans is evidently taking to his ideas. I maintain that there are not enough lazy idiots to reelect him.
Harvey wants to protect the new previously uninsured folks? Well here’s a thought…tell them to KEEP the insurance inforce and earn the persistency discount themselves just like everyone else did and stop your whining!
Whats the beef? How can anyone say this is biased against those who do not carry Auto Ins.– Its the law to have Auto coverage if you have a car. Too many Californians skirt the law by purchasing coverage to register the vehicle & then let it lapse, hoping they are not stopped & asked for proof. I have heard of cases where Law enforcement officers do not even ask for proof ofIns. when they do a traffic stop & cite someone for a violation.
No surprise being California, but why is the State dictating all of the pricing rules here?????
I also agree that if you’ve gone uninsured and cheated the system for years you ought to be penalized when you finally get legal. After all, you’ve probably caused accidents and it’s about time you start paying for it. It’s called the LAW!
so, here’s another way for folks to find a loophole. how many folks will say i have insurance and send in a so-called valid proof, only to have cancelled that policy a few months prior to starting the new insurance? every state requires insurance but how many just get it and cancel it just after they have license reinstated or re-registered the vehicle. it would probably pass because the folks in california want to save money, it’s a matter of those that violate the law. so is the state going to mandate itself to tell the next insurance, they are in a lapse of insurance? NOT! because it would cost them more money and time.
That you would want to penalize law abiding consumers from financially benefiting from a history of continuous coverage tells me how out of touch you are. Nothing will spur lower overall rates in the state more than increased competition by companies for the majority of California drivers. Currently uninsured drivers can either buy an underpriced policy in the state’s low cost auto program, or they can buy regular coverage, keep it in force for six months and benefit from having established their own continuous history.
The data is pretty strong for most carriers and across the country that having prior insurance is an indicator of risk (I do often question the previous BI limits issue). Leave it to CA to toss out anything that is fact or data oriented. Like many other proposals, this comes under the “it’s not my fault” logic.
It will hurt the uninsured flake’s FEELINGS. :(
It’s also not Faaaiir.
As long as we are ignoring sound underwriting and pricing, why not just write an initiative that says insurance will only cost $1? Would Harvey go for that?
It would be fair… to everyone except the insurance company!
Because people, the likes of Obama, are promoting irresponsbility and dependence on government, and governments “duty to look out for them”. A certain group of Americans is evidently taking to his ideas. I maintain that there are not enough lazy idiots to reelect him.