Oh, BTW, if you own a car in the State of California and do not insured it for liability, you are in violation of the law. That’s why people pay more when they finally decide to purchase insurance. Further, wait until you’re hit by someone without insurance and then tell me how you feel about “fairness”.
Also, the low cost consumers really should have HIGHER coverage because if they do more than 3K of damage, is it really fair for my insurer to have to cover the rest as an under- insured motorist? NO!
October 8, 2012 at 5:19 pm
Reality Check says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
The great state has a “low cost” auto policy that’s 10K/20K BI & 3K PD. With a financial “responsibility” law written in 1967 that requires only 15/30 & 5. That would leave on to believe that California has not had any inflation since July 1, 1967.
Our biggest problems now are underinsured motorists.
You’re missing the boat here Brokette. The people quoted in the article have for various reasons taken there vehicle off of the road. They are not driving around without insurance.
Unless they file a certificate of non-operation, they’re still breaking the law. Further, I didn’t see any of them talking about giving up their cars for public transportation–just giving up their insurance.
Too bad Rosenfield is blind:
Proposition 33 is good for the state
Although we choose to remain non-political in nature, we have to stand up for our customers when it comes to saving them money.
The facts about the proposition and its impact on consumers.
1. Rates are regulated by the state due to the passage of Proposition 103 in 1988. Proposition 33 will not change the law. http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_103,_Insurance_Rates_and_Regulation_(1988)
2. Carriers have been giving long-term customers loyalty or renewal discounts all along.
3. There is no surcharge contained in Proposition 33 for not having had prior insurance again due to the passage of Proposition 103.
Currently consumers only see better rates if a new company is beating their current policy at the entry level. The discount they are receiving from their current insurance company is not portable.
If Proposition 33 is passed by the voters in California, companies who choose to offer renewal discounts to their current customers will see greater competition because the renewal discount becomes portable. Just like the good driver discount that all companies are required to provide.
Don’t be misled by those who are saying that people without prior insurance are going to be penalized or surcharged. Proposition 33 will simply allow you to shop for insurance with other companies without losing your renewal discount you have earned.
Level the playing field again by passing Proposition 33.
Why is it necessary for the author of this article to identify George Joseph as a billionaire? How is that relevant to the story? Why can’t authors keep their bias to themselves and try to just report facts? Can she tell us how much Rosenfeld is worth?
Harvey Rosenfraud is a liar and a cheat and this will never change!!!! The Reality Check people are absolutely right on their comment regarding passing Prop. 33.
Insurers have been discounting customers with continuous coverage all along. Harvey what’s the difference between a company doing this with their own insureds versus those of another company?
Prop 33 is utterly ludicrous. Insurers are under NO OBLIGATION to provide “loyalty discounts” to anybody. They do it because they’ve found it helps them retain customers. Folks, you don’t “get” auto insurance. If you want to drive, you have to buy it. It’s a fee for service. Want to switch to another company that’s giving you a better discount or who has better customer service? Go right ahead! Insurers don’t owe you anything, and neither does the State of CA. If you don’t pay your premium, because you’ve lost a job or decide to join the military (yes, we still have an all-volunteer force), why shouldn’t you lose your coverage? You haven’t had insurance before, and are buying it for the first time and are worried that your premium will be higher? Why shouldn’t it? It’s called risk. And people, wake up and think for yourself. It doesn’t matter who is funding this. Every proposition in this state is funded by somebody with deep pockets.
The premise that every proposition is funded by somebody with deep pockets is also ludicrous. Look at the number of Grass Roots successes of the past. As citizens we are mandated to buy insurance and the mandate is ludicrous. It does not mandate a limit of coverage that is adequate in today’s economy. While it is true that companies don’t have to give “loyalty discounts”, the fact is that if they do, they should have the option of providing that same level of discount to a new customer whether or not Proposition 33 is passed. That’s called “free market capitalism”. Unfortunately, due to Prop 103(funded by deep pockets) the insurance industry is regulated by the government which is counter to the true free market.
The only way to solve the issue would be to not mandate anything and eliminate liability claims, or go to a TRUE non-watered down version of NO-FAULT insurance. Oh wait…that was also initially tried on the ballot in 1988 and was still a watered down version. Unfortunately, the deep-pockets of Harvey Rosenfield and Ralph Nader kept Prop 104 from passing.
California is a “not my fault” state.
I feel like this a great plan! In CA you have to register your vehicle AND proivde proof of insurance to do so! There are millions of us who’ve kept continuos coverage for many, many years and do so EVEN when it’s fincancially difficult. If you are a student? Don’t you drive your parents cars when at home during weekends, breaks, etc? YOU SHOULD BE LISTED AS A DRIVER OR STUDENT AWAY AT SCHOOL(DISCOUNT APPLIED OFTEN). This is continuos coverage. Military, of course they need an exemption. BUT if you just did not pay your bill and waited around for DMV to suspend your registration or some other reason, I don’t think that’s good enough. If you can’t afford a car and the expenses that go along with it, you should consider other transportation options. I think those of us who pay every month and do the right thing should get the discount and those of you who are irresponsible should be sur-charged. Fair is fair.
Prop 33 only eliminates the penalty for changing insurance providers. Arguments against this proposition mainly argue that it will create a surcharge penalty for first time and non-continuous customers. What they ignore is the fact that there is already a surcharge penalty for new and non-continuous users – so that is not going to change. It only eliminates it being imposed when you transfer continuous coverage from one provider to another, which is now used to discourage customers from switching insurance companies.
There is a similar and more severe surcharge penalty on home insurance policies – sometimes amounting to as much as 100 % increase penalty for new and non-continuous customers and even worse, some insurance companies won’t even sell a policy to new or non-continuous users at all.
Good to read you again, Mac. I think you’ve hit the nail on the head here. Too many entrenched inetrtses to allow anything meaningful to happen. Everyone agrees the system, if not out-and-out broken, can’t sustain itself for any length of time. A clearer problem in need of fixing would be hard to find, and yet it seems that many of our “leaders” have other priorities. The blogosphere isn’t helping much either (current blog excepted!). It’s apparently more important to score cheap political points by spreading fear, hatred, and lies than trying to hold a meaningful debate. I’m with you, Lynn. Sigh.
Oh, BTW, if you own a car in the State of California and do not insured it for liability, you are in violation of the law. That’s why people pay more when they finally decide to purchase insurance. Further, wait until you’re hit by someone without insurance and then tell me how you feel about “fairness”.
With the ridiculous $5k minimum liability limits that exist in California–there’s not much of a difference.
It’s $15k, not $5K. That’s the PD limit.
I’m aware of that.
The $15k is not far off the mark with many other states.
The $5k (or $3k for the “low cost”) limits on the PD are what is ridiculous.
California’s excessively favorable-to-the-insured “made whole” laws make the $15k not as much of an issue.
Anything more than a fender-bender and you’re at, or over, the $5k limits on the PD.
Also, the low cost consumers really should have HIGHER coverage because if they do more than 3K of damage, is it really fair for my insurer to have to cover the rest as an under- insured motorist? NO!
The great state has a “low cost” auto policy that’s 10K/20K BI & 3K PD. With a financial “responsibility” law written in 1967 that requires only 15/30 & 5. That would leave on to believe that California has not had any inflation since July 1, 1967.
Our biggest problems now are underinsured motorists.
You’re missing the boat here Brokette. The people quoted in the article have for various reasons taken there vehicle off of the road. They are not driving around without insurance.
Unless they file a certificate of non-operation, they’re still breaking the law. Further, I didn’t see any of them talking about giving up their cars for public transportation–just giving up their insurance.
Too bad Rosenfield is blind:
Proposition 33 is good for the state
Although we choose to remain non-political in nature, we have to stand up for our customers when it comes to saving them money.
The facts about the proposition and its impact on consumers.
1. Rates are regulated by the state due to the passage of Proposition 103 in 1988. Proposition 33 will not change the law. http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_103,_Insurance_Rates_and_Regulation_(1988)
2. Carriers have been giving long-term customers loyalty or renewal discounts all along.
3. There is no surcharge contained in Proposition 33 for not having had prior insurance again due to the passage of Proposition 103.
Currently consumers only see better rates if a new company is beating their current policy at the entry level. The discount they are receiving from their current insurance company is not portable.
If Proposition 33 is passed by the voters in California, companies who choose to offer renewal discounts to their current customers will see greater competition because the renewal discount becomes portable. Just like the good driver discount that all companies are required to provide.
Don’t be misled by those who are saying that people without prior insurance are going to be penalized or surcharged. Proposition 33 will simply allow you to shop for insurance with other companies without losing your renewal discount you have earned.
Level the playing field again by passing Proposition 33.
Why is it necessary for the author of this article to identify George Joseph as a billionaire? How is that relevant to the story? Why can’t authors keep their bias to themselves and try to just report facts? Can she tell us how much Rosenfeld is worth?
So I didn’t catch Rosenfields net worth? I’ll keep reading because the title is catchy…
Harvey Rosenfraud is a liar and a cheat and this will never change!!!! The Reality Check people are absolutely right on their comment regarding passing Prop. 33.
Insurers have been discounting customers with continuous coverage all along. Harvey what’s the difference between a company doing this with their own insureds versus those of another company?
Prop 33 is utterly ludicrous. Insurers are under NO OBLIGATION to provide “loyalty discounts” to anybody. They do it because they’ve found it helps them retain customers. Folks, you don’t “get” auto insurance. If you want to drive, you have to buy it. It’s a fee for service. Want to switch to another company that’s giving you a better discount or who has better customer service? Go right ahead! Insurers don’t owe you anything, and neither does the State of CA. If you don’t pay your premium, because you’ve lost a job or decide to join the military (yes, we still have an all-volunteer force), why shouldn’t you lose your coverage? You haven’t had insurance before, and are buying it for the first time and are worried that your premium will be higher? Why shouldn’t it? It’s called risk. And people, wake up and think for yourself. It doesn’t matter who is funding this. Every proposition in this state is funded by somebody with deep pockets.
The premise that every proposition is funded by somebody with deep pockets is also ludicrous. Look at the number of Grass Roots successes of the past. As citizens we are mandated to buy insurance and the mandate is ludicrous. It does not mandate a limit of coverage that is adequate in today’s economy. While it is true that companies don’t have to give “loyalty discounts”, the fact is that if they do, they should have the option of providing that same level of discount to a new customer whether or not Proposition 33 is passed. That’s called “free market capitalism”. Unfortunately, due to Prop 103(funded by deep pockets) the insurance industry is regulated by the government which is counter to the true free market.
The only way to solve the issue would be to not mandate anything and eliminate liability claims, or go to a TRUE non-watered down version of NO-FAULT insurance. Oh wait…that was also initially tried on the ballot in 1988 and was still a watered down version. Unfortunately, the deep-pockets of Harvey Rosenfield and Ralph Nader kept Prop 104 from passing.
California is a “not my fault” state.
I feel like this a great plan! In CA you have to register your vehicle AND proivde proof of insurance to do so! There are millions of us who’ve kept continuos coverage for many, many years and do so EVEN when it’s fincancially difficult. If you are a student? Don’t you drive your parents cars when at home during weekends, breaks, etc? YOU SHOULD BE LISTED AS A DRIVER OR STUDENT AWAY AT SCHOOL(DISCOUNT APPLIED OFTEN). This is continuos coverage. Military, of course they need an exemption. BUT if you just did not pay your bill and waited around for DMV to suspend your registration or some other reason, I don’t think that’s good enough. If you can’t afford a car and the expenses that go along with it, you should consider other transportation options. I think those of us who pay every month and do the right thing should get the discount and those of you who are irresponsible should be sur-charged. Fair is fair.
Prop 33 only eliminates the penalty for changing insurance providers. Arguments against this proposition mainly argue that it will create a surcharge penalty for first time and non-continuous customers. What they ignore is the fact that there is already a surcharge penalty for new and non-continuous users – so that is not going to change. It only eliminates it being imposed when you transfer continuous coverage from one provider to another, which is now used to discourage customers from switching insurance companies.
There is a similar and more severe surcharge penalty on home insurance policies – sometimes amounting to as much as 100 % increase penalty for new and non-continuous customers and even worse, some insurance companies won’t even sell a policy to new or non-continuous users at all.
Good to read you again, Mac. I think you’ve hit the nail on the head here. Too many entrenched inetrtses to allow anything meaningful to happen. Everyone agrees the system, if not out-and-out broken, can’t sustain itself for any length of time. A clearer problem in need of fixing would be hard to find, and yet it seems that many of our “leaders” have other priorities. The blogosphere isn’t helping much either (current blog excepted!). It’s apparently more important to score cheap political points by spreading fear, hatred, and lies than trying to hold a meaningful debate. I’m with you, Lynn. Sigh.