Editorial, THE PARADISE POST (Paradise, California)
On Tuesday we made our recommendation to vote no on Proposition 16. We liked the idea of voters being able to have some say in how their tax dollars may be spent.
We just didn’t like the 67 percent threshold. Today, we tackle Proposition 17 which unlike Prop. 16, there’s nothing to like. To start with, this bill is almost entirely funded by Mercury Insurance.
Now it is entirely possible that Mercury Insurance’s support for 17 is based on what’s best for everyone. It’s also possible the San Francisco Giants will trade pitcher Tim Lincecum to the Los Angeles Dodgers for a bag of chips to be named later. But that won’t happen and it’s unlikely Mercury Insurance’s support is based on anything other than its own self-interest. As our sister paper at the Contra Costa Times wrote, “It is designed to fool voters into believing it is simply a change in the law that would allow insurers to offer a “continuous coverage” discount on policies to new customers who switch auto insurance companies.”
However, companies would also be able to raise rates on drivers who have dropped their car insurance for 91 days or more in the past half-decade.
And carriers would get to slap surcharges of several hundred dollars or more on those motorists with good driving records. We’re guessing a lot more people would fall on the category of those who had lapses in coverage than those who have had “continuous coverage.” There are plenty of people who have lapses of insurance coverage because they don’t own car and not because they are driving uninsured. Why should those who don’t own a car get whacked for that? And punishing those who have driven uninsured is in the purview of law enforcement, not Mercury Insurance. It seems us to that Mercury Insurance isn’t looking to reward “continuous coverage” customers as much as it sees a gold mine in those who have had prior lapses.
But if Mercury is looking to reward its “continuous coverage” customers, then it can do that on its own without Prop. 17. This is an easy call. No on Prop. 17.
Tags: big corporations, consumer, contributions, deceptive, Editorial, Mercury, Prop 17, voters
