These regulations are really an assault on the middel class and really are short sighted.
Many of the professions receiving these discounts such as teachers, firefighters and accountants do not earn high salaries as a group, but have better driving records than the general population.
With so many companies in the market place, the department would serve the public better by allowing free competition in pricing so that consumers could shop around for the best rate. Eliminating Prop 103 restrictions and allowing rating for driving characteristics and predictive modeling would bring down rates for many people with good driving habits who may have lower incomes.
I aggree with you Observor 100% but what you are suggesting is not fair. It’s not fair that good drivers and on time payers may qualify for a better rate.
Couldn’t agree more with the suggestion and perspective, however, if you look back at when/how/why Prop 103 was created and the things that came along with that, this will NEVER go anywhere in California. The need for free market is nearing that point where the free market wants nothing to do with California and for very good reason. The void of logic and experience in Lara’s thought process is nothing new for him. This is just a stepping stone to the next rung in politics for him.
“Insurance companies must give greater access to auto insurance discounts for low-income drivers and people of color, regardless of their educational attainment,” Lara said in a statement.”
So much for color or ethnicity NOT being a factor in developing rates in California!
One day, it would be nice for elected officials to demonstrate they believe in math.
In addition, when conducting a study into the finanical elements (not credit scores) of these various groups, did the Commisioners office complete any correlation studies to link these financial elements with exposure/frequency data? Seems like this elected official prefers to generalize/demonize carriers.
Your comment does make the point of what rates are fair versus the concept of fairness to other parties. Most of us associate fairness with charging a person a premium based on their long term projected costs based on future loss costs while some of these regulators want insurance to compensate for all the socio-economic disparities in society. If they regulated the pricing of restaurants, they might demand that an establishment charge a different price for a hamburger based on class and race.
The real downside to this viewpoint is that we want to encourage more people to become professionals such as teachers, firefighters and accountants and society is better if more people have higher credit scores (pay their bills.) and drive safely. If certain characteristics perform better than others, a free market will encourage companies to charge the appropriate rate regardless of socio-economic status based on data. For instance, teachers usually receive better rates than attorneys based even though their earnings are quite a bit lower base on their group’s superior driving record.
These regulations are really an assault on the middel class and really are short sighted.
Many of the professions receiving these discounts such as teachers, firefighters and accountants do not earn high salaries as a group, but have better driving records than the general population.
With so many companies in the market place, the department would serve the public better by allowing free competition in pricing so that consumers could shop around for the best rate. Eliminating Prop 103 restrictions and allowing rating for driving characteristics and predictive modeling would bring down rates for many people with good driving habits who may have lower incomes.
I aggree with you Observor 100% but what you are suggesting is not fair. It’s not fair that good drivers and on time payers may qualify for a better rate.
Couldn’t agree more with the suggestion and perspective, however, if you look back at when/how/why Prop 103 was created and the things that came along with that, this will NEVER go anywhere in California. The need for free market is nearing that point where the free market wants nothing to do with California and for very good reason. The void of logic and experience in Lara’s thought process is nothing new for him. This is just a stepping stone to the next rung in politics for him.
“Insurance companies must give greater access to auto insurance discounts for low-income drivers and people of color, regardless of their educational attainment,” Lara said in a statement.”
So much for color or ethnicity NOT being a factor in developing rates in California!
One day, it would be nice for elected officials to demonstrate they believe in math.
In addition, when conducting a study into the finanical elements (not credit scores) of these various groups, did the Commisioners office complete any correlation studies to link these financial elements with exposure/frequency data? Seems like this elected official prefers to generalize/demonize carriers.
For someone involved closely with insurance, should this chap not be licensed?
Mike
Hi Mark B:
Your comment does make the point of what rates are fair versus the concept of fairness to other parties. Most of us associate fairness with charging a person a premium based on their long term projected costs based on future loss costs while some of these regulators want insurance to compensate for all the socio-economic disparities in society. If they regulated the pricing of restaurants, they might demand that an establishment charge a different price for a hamburger based on class and race.
The real downside to this viewpoint is that we want to encourage more people to become professionals such as teachers, firefighters and accountants and society is better if more people have higher credit scores (pay their bills.) and drive safely. If certain characteristics perform better than others, a free market will encourage companies to charge the appropriate rate regardless of socio-economic status based on data. For instance, teachers usually receive better rates than attorneys based even though their earnings are quite a bit lower base on their group’s superior driving record.