Editorial, THE BAKERSFIELD CALIFORNIAN
THE CALIFORNIAN RECOMMENDS:
Proposition 13: Seismic retrofitting of existing buildings — YES
Proposition 14: Creates voter-nominated primary election — YES
Proposition 15: Removes ban on public campaign financing — YES
Proposition 16: Requires supermajority to create public electricity provider — NO
Proposition 17: Allows auto insurance companies to charge based on continuous coverage — NO
Proposition 17, set to appear on the June 8 ballot, promises annual savings of up to $250 for California drivers who maintain continuous insurance coverage, even if they change carriers. Sounds appealing, doesn’t it? But there’s a catch.
Prop. 17, according to the official summary prepared by the state Attorney General’s Office, also “will allow insurance companies to increase cost of insurance to drivers who do not have a history of continuous insurance coverage.”
Now wait just a second. In 1988, California voters approved Proposition 103, which prohibits insurers from setting the premiums it charges a driver based on history of coverage. The passage of Prop. 17 would eliminate that important protection.
Current law “punishes 80 percent of responsible drivers who maintain auto insurance,” say proponents of Prop. 17, which has received more than $7 million in support from Los Angeles-based Mercury Insurance Group, according to the California Secretary of State’s Office.
So, what’s in it for Mercury, the state’s third-largest auto insurer, which is currently being investigated amid allegations it overcharged and and denied coverage to consumers? Proponents say a transferable continuous coverage discount will increase competition in the insurance market and lower rates, thereby encouraging more drivers to maintain insurance.
But the money to pay for those discounts has to come from somewhere. Every auto insurer must have an approved rate plan that establishes its average premium, according to an analysis of Prop. 17 by the state Department of Insurance. In order for everything to balance within that rate plan, a discount offered to one driver must correspond to a surcharge for another driver.
Based on that, Prop. 17, if passed, is more likely to discourage uninsured drivers from purchasing insurance. The costs to these drivers are already likely to be high, since the uninsured tend to be higher-risk drivers. California needs more people to sign up for insurance, not fewer.
Prop. 17 opponents also are concerned that the continuous coverage provision will unfairly penalize members of the military who are stationed abroad. (Prop. 17 provides exemptions for service members deployed stateside but merely offers those who are sent overseas the opportunity to apply for the exemption.) Also potentially affected: students who may choose to leave their cars home, and cancel their insurance, while away at college; and Californians who may not drive for extended periods for various reasons, including illness, injury or preference for public transportation.
Proposition 17 isn’t about lowering the cost of insurance; it’s about raising the cost for those who can least afford it. Vote no.
Tags: big corporations, deceptive, Editorial, Mercury
