CLASSIC! Liberals don’t care about helping poor people. They just want to hurt middle class people!
Would this law help the poor? Nope. It would just take away discounts from people making $49,000. or more and smart enough to join a group to get a discount. And so I guess that would reduce inequality. (That’s how socialism works, folks.)
I agree with you that this proposal, if enacted, would be poor policy and hurt many deserving drivers.
I think that it is too simple to divide the world into right and left buckets when navigating the nuances of public policy. Many of us have differences on how much the government should interact with the market economy. My preference would be that the California Department of Insurance focus on fraud of agents, companies and policyholders as well as the financial integrity of markets rather than pricing. However, I respect the opinions that consumers are concerned about rate variation that a free market can bring,
My concern with the Proposition 103 regulations and the interpretations of the regulations that followed is that the policies hurt most of the consumers in the state. Drivers with better credit scores outside of medical financial challenges benefit in other states, but not California. This proposal really hurts lower income professionals such as teachers and some public servants although their driving records as a group are superior. Other DOI restrictions such as limitations on renewal discounts restrict the ability of the consumer to obtain the lowest rate.
Sound public policy would maximize the consumers ability to shop for the lowest rate with markets that are reasonably stable. With hundreds of markets in California, the consumer should have the choice to purchase a policy that maximizes the protection they pay with their dollar. The restrictions imposed by this proposal reduces that choice.
I agree with everything you say. If you live in California, you have seen that the Insurance Commissioner has become a band box for woke progressive goals that has almost nothing to do with insurance regulation or helping consumers, including poor consumers.
If I were a Democrat Insurance Commissioner, I would simply make it easier and easier for low income people to shop for insurance. How about an on-line rater for coverage with minimum legal limits, comparing a dozen or more companies? That would be sensible and effective.
The commissioner is doing exactly what you detest; i.e. dividing the populous into economic categories as a means of discriminating against the wealthy / high earners. Actuarial models supposedly indicate that, in some lines, wealthier risks are better risks (lower rates), which is contrary to Socialist goals. Calibfornia’s political machinery again make changes to worsen an already bad economic environment.
I stopp ed feeling sorry for Californians a long time ago. You get the government (along with their rules regulations and taxes) you ask for. You asked for it Cali so here it is. if you want it to be different, elect some Ronald Reagans and you will at least be on your way to a better living in your state. If not, then shut up and take it because you asked for it.
Not everyone in California votes on the left….unfortunately it’s large metro areas like LA and SF that tilt the outcome due to their population size. The rest of us through-out the state didn’t “ask for it”.
I am running member discount programs nationwide for a large group of professionals…..truth be told, when carrier sets tolerable loss ratio, if it is exceeded, the discount for group continues. The carriers may not be offering discount based on the average risk of the group. For example, wealthier group members may incur larger claims due to vehicle value. Maybe the commission should evaluate the qualifications for group rates and apply a new standard, rather than arbitrary negation.
CLASSIC! Liberals don’t care about helping poor people. They just want to hurt middle class people!
Would this law help the poor? Nope. It would just take away discounts from people making $49,000. or more and smart enough to join a group to get a discount. And so I guess that would reduce inequality. (That’s how socialism works, folks.)
Hilarious. Exactly what we expect from the left.
Hi Craig:
I agree with you that this proposal, if enacted, would be poor policy and hurt many deserving drivers.
I think that it is too simple to divide the world into right and left buckets when navigating the nuances of public policy. Many of us have differences on how much the government should interact with the market economy. My preference would be that the California Department of Insurance focus on fraud of agents, companies and policyholders as well as the financial integrity of markets rather than pricing. However, I respect the opinions that consumers are concerned about rate variation that a free market can bring,
My concern with the Proposition 103 regulations and the interpretations of the regulations that followed is that the policies hurt most of the consumers in the state. Drivers with better credit scores outside of medical financial challenges benefit in other states, but not California. This proposal really hurts lower income professionals such as teachers and some public servants although their driving records as a group are superior. Other DOI restrictions such as limitations on renewal discounts restrict the ability of the consumer to obtain the lowest rate.
Sound public policy would maximize the consumers ability to shop for the lowest rate with markets that are reasonably stable. With hundreds of markets in California, the consumer should have the choice to purchase a policy that maximizes the protection they pay with their dollar. The restrictions imposed by this proposal reduces that choice.
I agree with everything you say. If you live in California, you have seen that the Insurance Commissioner has become a band box for woke progressive goals that has almost nothing to do with insurance regulation or helping consumers, including poor consumers.
If I were a Democrat Insurance Commissioner, I would simply make it easier and easier for low income people to shop for insurance. How about an on-line rater for coverage with minimum legal limits, comparing a dozen or more companies? That would be sensible and effective.
The commissioner is doing exactly what you detest; i.e. dividing the populous into economic categories as a means of discriminating against the wealthy / high earners. Actuarial models supposedly indicate that, in some lines, wealthier risks are better risks (lower rates), which is contrary to Socialist goals. Calibfornia’s political machinery again make changes to worsen an already bad economic environment.
I stopp ed feeling sorry for Californians a long time ago. You get the government (along with their rules regulations and taxes) you ask for. You asked for it Cali so here it is. if you want it to be different, elect some Ronald Reagans and you will at least be on your way to a better living in your state. If not, then shut up and take it because you asked for it.
Not everyone in California votes on the left….unfortunately it’s large metro areas like LA and SF that tilt the outcome due to their population size. The rest of us through-out the state didn’t “ask for it”.
Quit acting like underwriters wont find another way to apply the same discount.
I am running member discount programs nationwide for a large group of professionals…..truth be told, when carrier sets tolerable loss ratio, if it is exceeded, the discount for group continues. The carriers may not be offering discount based on the average risk of the group. For example, wealthier group members may incur larger claims due to vehicle value. Maybe the commission should evaluate the qualifications for group rates and apply a new standard, rather than arbitrary negation.